Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Gloucester Corporation Bill [Lords] (King's Consent signified),

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Milford Docks Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

EAST INDIA (BUDGET).

Address for
Return of the Budget of the Governor-General of India in Council for.1935–36."—[Mr. Butler.]

EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS.

Address for
Return of Licences granted under the Act 39 and 40 Vic., cap. 77, showing the number of experiments performed under the Act during 1934, and the registered places at which such experiments may be performed (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 121, of 1934)."—[Captain Wallace.]

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (DISTURBANCES, LAHORE).

Brigadier - General CLIFTON BROWN: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the recent Sikh-Moslem trouble over an old mosque at Lahore has now subsided; whether British troops had to be used to restore law and order and, if so, why; and whether there were any casualties among police, troops, or civilians?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a summary of the events which led to the recent disturbances in Lahore. The latest reports show that the city is now quiet. The
military forces available in the district have been used to picket and patrol the city, and in particular to isolate the area in which the mosque is situated. The reports so far received do not show to what extent British troops have been used for this purpose; but in any case the military forces had no occasion so far as I am aware to use forcible measures to restore law and order. No casualties among the troops have been reported, but four isolated assaults of a murderous kind were committed in the city, the victims being Sikhs. Two of these assaults have proved fatal; the alleged murderers in both cases were arrested at once.

Brigadier-General BROWN: May I ask whether British troops were brought down from the hills; if not, what British troops were used?

Mr. BUTLER: I understand from the information that I have available that a small detachment of British troops were brought in from Sialkot. That is all the information I have at present.

Brigadier-General BROWN: If they had to bring in troops, why could not they have used Indian troops who were quartered there? Was it because they could not be trusted in communal trouble?

Mr. BUTLER: My hon. and gallant Friend must not make any inference of that sort. The hulk of the troops employed were Indian, and, in addition, there was the detachment to which I have referred, according to the information which I have available.

Following is the summary:

The trouble arose out of a dispute regarding a disused Moslem mosque situated in the grounds of a Sikh temple at Lahore. The civil rights of the Sikhs to this mosque has been confirmed by a legal Tribunal, but the Muslims had appealed against its decision, and were anxious to have the mosque restored to their community. Despite the efforts of the Punjab Government to promote a settlement which would be honourable to both sides, news was received early in the morning of the 8th July, that the Sikhs intnded to demolish the mosque. In view of the legal position it was impossible to prevent them from carrying out their intention and the local Government
therefore immediately devoted its endeavours towards preventing any possible bloodshed, the danger of which on a large scale was obviously great.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGIER.

Mr. JOHN WILMOT: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government intend to raise any question on the Statute of the International Zone of Tangier before the expiry, in November, 1935, of the period of its automatic renewal?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Samuel Hoare): As already stated in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir J. Power) on the 29th May, the attitude to be adopted by His Majesty's Government before November of this year on the question of the revision of the Tangier Statute depends on the replies of the other Powers concerned to the inquiry addressed to them by His Majesty's Government, which have not yet been received.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL ARMAMENTS (ANGLO-GERMAN AGREEMENT).

Mr. WILMOT: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in order to comply with the Article of the Covenant of the League which requires that every international agreement shall be registered with the secretariat and published as soon as possible, the Anglo-German Naval Agreement has been so registered; and whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government that the provision of the Article that no international agreement shall be binding until registered shall apply to the Anglo-German Naval Agreement?

Sir S. HOARE: The text of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement has been communicated to the League of Nations and I understand that it will be registered forthwith.

Mr. WILMOT: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question and inform us whether the Agreement is in force now, or whether it will not be in force until it has in fact been registered in accordance with the Covenant?

Sir S. HOARE: I did not apprehend that that was the object of the last passage in the hon. Member's question. If he will put down that specific question, I will give him a specific answer.

Mr. WILMOT: 25.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the increases in German armaments recently published are accepted by His Majesty's Government as being in accordance with the Anglo-German Agreement?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Sir Victor Warrender): I presume that the hon. Member is referring to the information published by the German Government regarding the ships they have laid down, or intend to lay down, this year. As will be seen by reference to the exchange of Notes, this programme formed no part of the Anglo-German Agreement, but it is in no way contrary to any part of it.

Mr. WILMOT: Are we to interpret that as meaning that the increase in the number of German submarines is in accordance with the sanction given by the British Government in the Anglo-German Agreement?

Sir V. WARRENDER: The hon. Gentleman must understand what I have said in my reply. This Agreement has not any relation to the German programme of the period before the Agreement.

Mr. WILMOT: Am I not right in understanding the hon. Member to say that this large increase in German naval armaments did not conflict with the Agreement?

Sir V. WARRENDER: That is what I said in my answer.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 26.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will inform the House what will be the average age in the year 1941 of the British and German capital ships, respectively, under the Naval Agreement recently entered into?

Sir V. WARRENDER: The Anglo-German Naval Agreement did not specify the rate at which the German Fleet will be built. I cannot, therefore, say how many new ships Germany will have built, or how many old ships Germany will still retain, in 1941. The existing 15 British capital ships would have an average age
of 23½ years in 1941, but the average age of the capital ships that we shall possess on that date will depend on what replacement programme is adopted by His Majesty's Government in the meantime.

Sir W. DAVISON: Do the Admiralty not realise that in arriving at those percentages the age of the ships is a material factor, and is it not recognised that a ship over 20 years old is obsolete; also, on those figures, is it not a very serious matter that the Admiralty should inform the House of Commons as soon as possible as to the renewals which will be required to meet this new German Fleet?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that if these ships were all replaced now it would solve the whole problem of the distressed areas?

Captain PETER MACDONALD: Do we understand from the Minister's reply that existing German tonnage was not taken into consideration when the new Treaty was entered into?

Sir V. WARRENDER: The new Agreement puts a limit to the extent to which the German Fleet can be built up. Whether the Agreement came into force or not, that construction would still have continued.

Sir W. DAVISON: Do the Admiralty agree with that?

Oral Answers to Questions — SYRIA (ASSYRIAN SETTLEMENT).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in view of the grant by the Iraq Government of £125,000 towards the settlement of Assyrian refugees in Syria and the offer by the French Government to provide land in Syria, His Majesty's Government will provide, the remainder of the sum necessary to carry out the migration scheme recommended by the League of Nations?

Lieut.-Commander TUFNELL: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the president of the League Council Committee has yet reported to the committee on the settlement of the Assyrians in Syria; and, if so, whether he can make any statement as to the nature of the recommendations in this document?

Sir S. HOARE: The report of the President of the League of Nations Assyrian Committee on his mission to Iraq and Syria was considered by the Assyrian Committee at Geneva last week, and a statement has now been issued by the Information Section of the League of Nations, the text of which I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Until the various documents referred to in the statement have been received and considered by His Majesty's Government, I regret that I am unable to make any further statement.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: May I get an answer to my question if I put it down again in a week or so, and will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to bear in mind that there is a general impression that we have let down these Assyrians very badly?

Sir S. HOARE: I hope that that impression will not gain ground. If the hon. Member will put down a question in a week's time, I hope to be able to give him more information than I have done to-day.

Following is the text referred to:
Fallowing an invitation by the Iraqi Government, the President of the Council Committee for the Settlement of the Assyrians of Iraq, M. Lopez Olivan (Spain), accompanied by the Secretary of the Committee, recently paid a visit to Iraq. It will be remembered that this mission was authorised by the Council at its meeting of 17th April in connection with an offer made by the French Government to make certain lands in Syria available for the settlement of those Assyrians who might elect to leave Iraq. On its way to Bagdad and again on its return the mission had discussions with the French Mandatory authorities on this subject.
The Committee of the Council met at Geneva from 10th to 13th July and after having studied M. Olivan's report took the following decisions:

1. Having regard to the information obtained on the spot by the mission, the Committee decided, for technical, economic and political reasons, that its efforts should henceforth he directed towards the realisation of the plan for the settlement of the Assyrians in the district of the Gharb.
2. The Committee requested the French Government to be good enough to supply, before 15th August if possible, full details of the Gharb scheme, with precise information from the technical and financial points of view. The Committee suggested that a financial expert and an expert in exchange of populations should
731
collaborate on behalf of the Committee with the High Commissariat in preparing this document.
3. At a certain stage, it will be necessary to make a thorough and individual consultation of the Assyrians as to their desire to leave Iraq. But from a preliminary general consultation which the mission made in Iraq, the opinion was formed that as many as 25,000 Assyrians might elect to leave the country.
4. The Committee took note of the offer made by the Iraqi Government to contribute to the work of settlement a sum of £125,000, calculated on the basis of £10 for each Assyrian up to a maximum of 12,500 persons. The Committee, in view of the opinion of its President regarding the probable number of Assyrians who may elect to leave Iraq, considers that this offer cannot be regarded as affording a sufficiently sure basis for a comprehensive solution of the problem, and has accordingly decided to urge the Iraqi Government to augment its contribution.
5. The Committee also decided again to draw attention to the appeal made by the Council, on 19th January, 1934, to governments and private organisations, and requested the Secretary-General to apply to all members of the League, urgently appealing to them to make a contribution to enable the plan now adopted by the Committee to be realised.
6. The President of the Committee has further sent a special letter to the Goverment of the United Kingdom, which has always shown a special interest in the solution of this problem, and which is the only Government, apart from that of Iraq, which has so far made an offer to the League, having several times stated that it was ready to pay its share of a League contribution.

The proposed plan, according to estimates furnished by the Mandatory Power in Syria, involves an expenditure of 60,000,000 French francs (£800,000). This figure does not make allowance for ultimate repayment by the settlers, the principle of which has now been accepted by the Committee. It may be added that the French representative was able to inform the Committee that the estimate on which the Mandatory Power first made its calculations are based on data that are now somewhat out of date and that, in the view of the competent authorities, a fairly considerable reduction in the amount originally foreseen may be possible when a more exact estimate is formed. Nevertheless, in view of the possibility that any reduction may be counter-balanced to some extent by the fact that a larger number of Assyrians may have to be transferred than was originally contemplated, the Committee thinks it prudent still to regard the above figure as the sum which may be required to finance the operation.
The success of the whole undertaking now depends on the funds that can be obtained.
The only funds so far received amount to £60,000 which have been placed at the disposal of the Secretary-General of the League by the Government of Iraq. This sum has already made possible the transfer from Iraq of 1,386 Assyrians, including the inmates of the Refugee Camp at Mosul which has now been closed down. These Assyrians are now in those villages on the Upper Khabur in which 2,200 other Assyrian refugees have for some time been provisionally settled.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

RUSSIA.

Sir W. DAVISON: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps have been taken to negotiate a formal treaty of commerce and navigation between the British Government and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, in accordance with the pledges given to the House of Commons so long ago as February, 1934, when they approved a provisional trade agree-bent with Russia on the assurance that the same was only of a temporary character pending the completion of negotiations for a formal treaty, which would contain provisions dealing with the question of compensation to British nationals in respect of property belonging to them which had been apropriated by the Soviet authorities?

Sir S. HOARE: No suitable opportunity has yet arisen for taking the step suggested by my hon. Friend, but I can assure him that the matter is under continual consideration by His Majesty's Government.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will my right hon. Friend remember that in his review of foreign affairs last week he stated that our relations were very satisfactory, not to say cordial? Can he explain why no steps have been taken to start negotiations for a formal treaty, especially as definite promises were given to creditors that when the formal treaties were negotiated the question of their claims would be dealt with?

Sir S. HOARE: The hon. Member must use the words that I myself actually used. In any case, we are ready to take the first good opportunity that arises. At present no such opportunity has arisen.

Sir W. DAVISON: Surely it is our business to initiate the opportunity seeing that our nationals are concerned, and what is the object of registering these claims if nothing is done?

EXPORT CREDITS (WHITE FISH).

Mr. BURNETT: 13.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he will consider extending the export credits guarantee given in the case of the herring industry to cover white fish cured in this country and exported?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The export credit guarantee is available to cover white fish as well as herrings cured in this country and exported, and the Department will be glad to consider any proposals that exporters may put forward.

ANGLO-RUMANIAN PAYMENTS AGREEMENT.

Mr. ALAN TODD (for Mr. HALLCAINE): 35.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the proposals of the Rumanian Government to repudiate in part the recent debt agreement signed with the British Government this year; and whether any representations have been made on this subject?

Lieut - Colonel COLVILLE: His Majesty's Government are aware that the terms of the payments agreement of 8th February are not being observed. The matter has formed the subject of diplomatic representations, as the result of which a Rumanian delegation has come to London and discussions are now proceeding.

ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.

Mr. DAVID MASON: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can inform the House as to the prospects of the Council of the League of Nations being called together at an early date to discuss the Italo-Abyssinian dispute?

Miss RATHBONE: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is proposed, as requested by Abyssinia, to call an early meeting of the Council of the League to deal with the Italo-Abyssinian dispute, and at what date?

Sir S. HOARE: At its meeting held on the 25th May, the Council decided to meet if, in default of agreement between the arbitrators for the settlement of the dispute, an understanding should not have been reached by 25th July between these arbitrators as to the selection of the fifth arbitrator, unless the four arbitrators agreed to the extension of this period; the Council also decided to meet to examine the situation if on 25th August the settlement by means of conciliation and arbitration should not have taken place. In view of the above circumstances an early meeting of the Council appears inevitable.

Miss RATHBONE: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply has been given to the Abyssinian note remonstrating at the withholding of export licences for munitions ordered by Abyssinia; whether, in fact, such licences are being withheld; and whether it is proposed to continue to withhold them, and on what grounds?

Sir S. HOARE: The matter is at present under consideration but I hope shortly to be in a position to make an announcement on the subject.

Miss RATHBONE: In the event of the League being unable to secure for Abyssinia a settlement of her dispute by peaceful measures, may not her delay in obtaining arms fatally injure her prospects of effectively defending herself?

Sir S. HOARE: I should prefer not to deal with a hypothetical question. In any case, I have nothing to add at present to the statement that I have just made.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does my right hon. Friend know of any other Power that is permitting the export of arms?

Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he has received from the Egyptian Government as to possible prejudice to their interests which might follow from recent and future developments in Abyssinia?

Sir S. HOARE: No representations of the kind referred to by the bon. Member have been received from the Egyptian Government.

Sir M. McKENZIE WOOD: May we take it that the Egyptian Government do not consider that their interests are
likely to be prejudiced by a war and a transfer of sovereignty in Abyssinia?

Sir S. HOARE: I cannot answer as to the views of the Egyptian Government as they have not expressed them to me.

Captain WATERHOUSE: 33.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, during the last three months, any certificate for the export of arms to Abyssinia has been refused; and, if so, on what grounds?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: No licences for the export of arms to Abyssinia have been refused during the last three months.

Captain WATERHOUSE: Am I to understand that all have been granted that have been applied for?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Two have been received, and these are under consideration and have not yet been granted.

Captain WATERHOUSE: Does not the delay in these cases cause a differentiation against Abyssinia?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: On a technical point both the applications were out of order.

POLAND (UKRAINIAN MINORITY).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make inquiries and inform the House of the result of the petition concerning the treatment of the Ukrainian minority in Poland, which was signed by a number of British Members of Parliament and others and transmitted to the League of Nations on 29th December, 1934?

Sir S. HOARE: The Secretary-General of the League of Nations forwarded this petition to the Polish delegate on 31st January, for any observations which the Polish Government might desire to make. As the Polish Government did not inform the Secretary-General, within the customary time-limit of three weeks, of their intention to make any observations on the petition the Secretary-General communicated the petition on 5th March to the members of the League Council for their information. The question is now under consideration by a Committee of Three.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

MILK MARKETING SCHEME.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 14.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that three farmers in the parish of Repton, without consulting the other farmers or retailers, decided to increase the price of milk by 1d. per quart; that the Milk Marketing Board threatened the rest of the farmers with a fine unless they increased their prices; and under what authority the Milk Marketing Board took this action?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): I was not aware of the cases to which the hon. Member refers, but if he will be good enough to supply me with sufficient details to enable them to be identified I will have inquiries made.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will not the right hon. Gentleman obtain the information from that particular district or from the Milk Marketing Board?

Mr. ELLIOT: I think that I ought to have a few particulars before I make inquiries. If the hon. Gentleman will send me the particulars he has in mind, I will do my best to get him the information.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is not a farmer allowed to supply his own milk at his own price?

IRISH CATTLE (WARBLE FLY).

Sir BASIL PETO: 15.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will consider making an order prohibiting the entry at British ports of cattle from Ireland, during the months of February to June, which carry the characteristic lumps of the warble fly maggot, in conjunction with regulations for compulsory dressing of all cattle during these months for warble fly in this country?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am not at present in a position to add to the replies I have given recently to question on this subject. As my hon. Friend is aware, the whole question of the control of the warble fly is now being carefully considered.

Sir B. PETO: May I take it that the right hon. Gentleman will consider the possible effect of negotiations on the lines indicated in my question in view of his determination to get the warble fly disease cleared out of this country?

Mr. ELLIOT: Yes, certainly.

PIG MARKETING SCHEME.

Captain HEILGERS: 16.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that, although pigs graded as A and B under the marketing scheme are paid for at prices according to grade, the bacon is subsequently sold at the same price; and whether he will take steps to make the grading and prices correspond?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am informed that bacon manufactured from pigs which are graded A and B in their respective weight classes frequently realises the same price. As regards the latter part of the question, the matter is one for the attention of the Pigs and Bacon Marketing Boards, who, I understand, are giving it their consideration.

Captain HEILGERS: Will the right hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the Pigs and Bacon Marketing Boards to the fact that the reduction of the present number of grades from five to three will probably solve the question?

Mr. ELLIOT: They will have their attention drawn to it by this question and answer.

FOODSTUFFS (HOME PRODUCTION).

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 17.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will consider the appointment of an expert committee to decide, in the interests both of agriculture and of the general industrial economy of the country, the extent to which the Home production of each kind of foodstuff should be increased in the next few years?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am unable to accept the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend. I can assure him, however, that the question of domestic production of different articles of foodstuff in relation both to the interests of agriculture and to the general economy of the country is one which the Government have constantly under consideration.

Sir A. KNOX: Would not the findings of such a committee tend to stabilise the industry; and would they not also strengthen the hands of the right hon. Gentleman in resisting possible future attempts of the Board of Trade to give away the interests of British agriculture in trade agreements?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am afraid that the collective responsibility of the Cabinet would have to take precedence over the findings of any committee, however important.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Prime Minister said recently that what agriculture wanted was fixity, and that agriculture is not likely to get fixity unless there is real planning, and does he not think that it is time the Government decided on a plan?

GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE.

Mr. T. SMITH: 41.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of separate financial resolutions and Bills based upon such resolutions, including Bills extending the power or period of operation, passed during the period of office of the present Government which had as their main purpose the granting of a subsidy or financial guarantee to agriculture?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): During the present Parliament, this House has passed five financial resolutions authorising the introduction of Bills for the main purpose stated. In addition, the Financial Resolution for the Cattle (Emergency Provisions) (No. 2) Bill is awaiting the consideration of the House.

FRESHWATER FISH (CLOSE SEASON).

Captain CUNNINGHAM - REID: 18.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether in view of the doubts as to whether the statutory close times for different species of fish apply to purely private waters, he will introduce legislation to make the law clear on this point?

Mr. ELLIOT: I do not think there is need for the amending legislation suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: As the interests of many anglers, who are mostly of the working-class, are affected, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the Government might take the course of bringing a test case?

Mr. ELLIOT: The provisions of the Act seem to be clear.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEPHONE SERVICE.

Mr. GLOSSOP: 19 and 20.
asked the Postmaster-General (1) whether there has been any appreciable increase of night telephone calls from England to the Channel Islands since the reduction in charges took place;
(2) whether he is aware that at the present time there is a delay of approximately two hours during the evening periods in obtaining from the Channel Islands a telephone subscriber in England; whether he can state how many lines there are from England to the Channel Islands; and whether he proposes to increase the number of lines?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Major Tryon): Since the reduction of trunk telephone charges, night calls between Great Britain and the Channel Islands have increased by more than 100 per cent. Traffic on the route in question is seasonal in character; and at times, when the traffic is particularly heavy, abnormal delays are unfortunately inevitable. My hon. Friend may rest assured, however, that all possible steps are being taken to reduce these delays to a minimum. To supplement the existing cable, arrangements have recently been made to provide a second circuit by means of an experimental radio-telephone channel which has met with fair success and is being developed with the object of giving full service throughout the day. Arrangements are also being made to provide an additional circuit between the islands of Guernsey and Jersey.

Mr. GLOSSOP: May I ask my right hon. and gallant Friend whether the new experimental line will be in working order for next year's holiday season?

Major TRYON: I cannot name a date. It is in the experimental stage, and we hope it will be successful.

Captain CUNNINGHAM - REID: 22.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that telephone toll calls after 7 p.m. are still subject in numerous cases to grave delays; and what steps he is prepared to take to remedy this state of affairs, either by the engagement of additional night telephone operators or otherwise?

Major TRYON: The popularity of long-distance calls after 7 p.m. continues to grow and there is additional pressure of traffic at present owing to seasonal conditions. The situation is being carefully watched, and I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that no effort is being spared to improve the general speed of service after 7 p.m. Instructions have been issued for the employment of additional night staff where justified.

AUXILIARY POSTMEN (FULL-TIME POSTS).

Mr. MAINWARING: 21.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the many cases of injustice imposed upon men having many years of auxiliary service to their credit, he will consider taking steps to remove the statutory limitation against placing other than ex-service men in permanent employment?

Major TRYON: No, Sir. I do not think that in present circumstances ex-service men should be deprived of a preference which they have enjoyed since 1897. Under this long standing arrangement, half the vacancies for postmen are assigned to ex-service men, and half to persons already in the Post Office service. The majority of the latter vacancies are required to provide outlets for boy messengers, but it is found possible to assign some of them to auxiliary postmen with long service. It is also the practice when an auxiliary duty is enlarged into a full-time post to appoint the existing holder to the new post, provided he has a reasonable amount of service in the Post Office to his credit. In these ways provision is made for the advancement of a certain number of auxiliary postmen to full-time posts.

Mr. MAINWARING: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there are a large number of cases in the country where auxiliary postmen have had a long period of service and that when positions are made permanent ex-service men are brought in to fill the posts, not from the immediate area but from long distances away?

Major TRYON: I am not prepared to put geographical bounds to recognition of the services which the ex-service men gave to this country.

Major LEIGHTON: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give a guarantee that he will always give preference to ex-service men for the Post Office?

Major TRYON: I am not quite sure whether I understand my hon. and gallant Friend's question aright. I cannot give a guarantee that all these posts shall be given exclusively to ex-service men.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not the case that in all European countries these posts are reserved for the benefit of the men who have served with the forces?

Mr. MAXTON: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consider giving the same terms to men who have served during the War as to post-war serving soldiers?

Major TRYON: The position is that we give half these vacancies to ex-service men; but I realise the point put by the hon. Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring) and 662 auxiliary postmen not ex-service men were also given permanent posts last year?

WIRELESS RECEPTION (INTERFERENCE).

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: 23.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider the introduction of legislation enforcing the compulsory modification of electrical apparatus causing interference with radio reception?

Major TRYON: The whole subject of the measures that can best be taken to prevent interference with wireless broadcasting is at present under consideration by a committee appointed by the Institution of Electrical Engineers on which the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Post Office are represented, in addition to the electrical and wireless interests concerned. The question whether there is any need for legislation will be considered when the committee's final report is received.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: Is it not the fact that legislation has been found very satisfactory in France?

Major TRYON: I cannot speak of what has happened in France, though I should be glad to receive any information from my hon. and gallant Friend; but we prefer to remedy these difficulties by technical means rather than by legislation, if that be possible.

HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT: LIGHT FAILURE.

Sir M. McKENZIE WOOD: 24.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether there is an alternative supply of electric current for lighting the Houses of Parliament; and whether he has taken any steps to prevent another failure in the lighting system?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The recent failure of the lighting was due to a breakdown at the supply sub-station. While there are alternative cables which can be used if the circuit usually used is broken, there is at present no alternative source of supply. The latter would, I am informed, involve very heavy expenditure, but I am communicating further with the Electricity Commissioners on the point. Meanwhile arrangements are being made to secure an adequate supply of candles in case of another breakdown.

Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is another form of lighting that never fails?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: If the hon. Member refers to gas, he must remember that to put gas into this House in lieu of electric light would be a most elaborate and costly undertaking.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: Is there not enough gas in the House already?

Mr. WEST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that much of the electric lighting equipment of the House is obsolete and out of date?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I do not think I could say that authoritatively. A good deal has been done in recent years to bring it more up to date. As I pointed out, there was no breakdown of the system in the House or in the connections between the House and the supply, but a breakdown at the source of the supply. If the "juice" is cut off, you do not get any light.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: Are we to understand that there is one centralised source of supply for this House and an area of London, and does the right hon. Gentleman consider it satisfactory, in view of the possibility of an emergency arising, that it should be so centralised?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: That is rather the suggestion I made in my original answer. We are entirely dependent at present on one source of supply. I understood that the idea of the grid system was that if one source of supply was knocked out there would be a means of speedy transfer to another source of supply, and that is what I am inquiring about.

Mr. THORNE: Have the Government ever considered the advisability of having their own installation as a stand-by?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: And with a gas engine to drive it.

UNEMPLOYMENT (SOUTH WALES).

Mr. MAINWARING: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of insured workers (males) registered at the employment exchanges of Ferndale, Porth, Tonypandy, and Treorchy, respectively, placing

Last spell of Un employment.
Ferndale.
Porth.
Tonypandy.
Treorchy.


Less than 12 months
…
…
…
3,379
1,907
1,646
2,805


1 year but less than 2 years
…
…
475
560
619
804


2 years but less than 3 years
…
…
816
313
625
766


3 years but less than 4 years
…
…
293
477
418
361


4 years but less than 5 years
…
…
402
360
858
669

5 year or over
…
…
…
…
387
315
871
327


Total
…
…
5,752
3,932
5,037
5,732

Of the persons who had been on the registers for extended periods, a proportion, which will increase as the period on the register increases, will have had one or more short spells of employment, lasting not more than three days each. As regards the second part of the question, the numbers of insured males, agd 16–64, recorded as unemployed at these exchanges at 24th June, 1935, expressed as percentages of the estimated numbers, aged 16–64, insured at July, 1934, in the areas of the same exchanges, were as follows:


Ferndale Employment Exchange
79.9


Porth Employment Exchange
45.1


Tonypandy Employment Exchange
46.5


Treorchy Employment Exchange
36.4

COAL INDUSTRY (OVERTIME).

Mr. MAINWARING: 28.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether, in view of

them in groups representing years of unemployment suffered by each, and giving the percentage of unemployment at each of the exchanges during the month of June last?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): As the reply includes tables of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following of the statement:

As regards the first part of the question, particulars are available only for unemployed insured persons who are applicants for insurance benefit or unemployment allowances, and only as to the length of the last spell of continuous unemployment of such applicants. The table below analyses the numbers of male applicants on the registers of the Ferndale, Porth, Tonypandy and Treorchy employment exchanges at 24th June, 1935, according to the length of the last spell of unemployment.

its importance in order to reduce unemployment in the distressed mining areas of the country, he will call for a special report from His Majesty's inspectors of mines in respect of the extent to which overtime now worked in the mines may be dispensed with, so making it possible to give employment to additional men; and whether he will arrange for such special reports to be laid upon the Table of the House?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Captain Crookshank): As I announced the other day, in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Hamilton, the report of the recent special overtime inquiry in Scotland will be published very shortly. Pending its publication, and proper opportunity for all parties concerned to consider and discuss the problem as a whole, in the light both of this report and
of the Lancashire report which was published last year, I cannot commit myself to any particular course of action.

Mr. MAINWARING: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that complaints are broadcast throughout the mining industry about the unnecessary amount of overtime now being worked, and that, in the opinion of the mining representatives in this House, here is scope for employment of additional men?

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Would the hon. Gentleman approach the Miners' Federation and ask them to call upon their members not to be so anxious to work overtime?

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House why he regards what is known to be deliberate evasion of the law as a problem?

Captain CROOKSHANK: The questions put to me could be more satisfactorily dealt with in the Debate which is to take place, I understand, next week. What I would say again is that, if there are any specific cases which the hon. Gentleman or his Friends like to bring to my notice, I will have them looked into. In the meantime, I consider that we had better discuss the implications of the two reports which we now have rather than start calling for other reports.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

SMOKELESS FUEL.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 31.
asked the Minister of Health, whether, in order to secure a cleaner atmosphere and the consequent improvement in the public health, he will recommend to the notice of other local authorities the action of the city of Manchester, which is now carrying out tests of smokeless fuels in its town hall over a period of 12 months; and what has been the Ministry's own experience of smokeless fuel?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): The tests at Manchester have been only recently commenced. The results of the tests will no doubt in due course be available for other authorities. My right hon. Friend is informed by the First Commissioner of Works that smokeless fuel has been found satisfactory for
use in open grates, but the cost is at the present time greater than that of ordinary house coal after allowing for relative efficiency.

PATENT MEDICINES (ADVERTISING).

Mr. TODD (for Mr. HALL-CAINE): 30.
asked the Minister of Health, whether, arising out of the recent deputation received by him on the subject, he proposes to introduce legislation controlling the advertising in this country of patent medicines?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend is not at present in a position to make any statement on this subject.

HOUSING (SLUM CLEARANCE).

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: 32.
asked the Minister of Health, whether he will now extend to property owners in England and Wales the right enjoyed by Scotland of an independent hearing of appeals against decisions reached by the Minister of Health's inspectors about property condemned under a clearance order?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I can only refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to his previous similar question of 20th June.

Mr. ADAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman submit this issue to a free vote of the House; and if not, why not?

THAMES TUGBOAT (EXPLOSION).

Mr. THORNE: 34.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give any information regarding an explosion in the engine-room of a tugboat in the Thames on 10th July, 1935; and whether he can state how many people were injured and what was the cause of the explosion?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): At the moment the only information I have is that which appeared in the Press, according to which six people were injured, five seriously, when some petrol exploded in the motor barge "Westgate" which was under repair at Messrs. Donald Miller's Engineering Workshops in Limehouse. The circumstances attending the explosion are being investigated by Board of Trade surveyors in conjunction with Home Office factory inspectors.

BRITISH ARMY (SOLDIERS UNDER ARREST).

Mr. TINKER: 36.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that soldiers under arrest are handcuffed and taken from one place to another in railway carriages that are occupied by other passengers; and will he have an inquiry made to see if this method of conveying arrested soldiers could not be dealt with in some other way?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): I am aware that on occasion it is necessary for soldiers under arrest to be conveyed long distances by rail. As regards the use of handcuffs it would not be right, for obvious reasons, to interfere with the discretion of the escort responsible for the safe custody of the soldier.

Mr. TINKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only a week ago in a crowded compartment on the Tube, a young private was conveyed handcuffed, and would he call that bringing dignity into the Army? If a soldier has to be taken handcuffed, could he not be taken in a separate compartment?

Mr. HACKING: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the present position is not very satisfactory. I am having the whole matter looked into. There are practical difficulties.

Mr. PIKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that Charles Peace would not have escaped if he had been handcuffed?

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

Mr. TINKER: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the large number of cases of injured workmen who have to get surgical appliances, artificial legs, arms, etc., to assist them to follow their employment; that there is nothing in the Workmen's Compensation Act to cover the cost; and whether he will consider amending it so that all such cases shall be met by payment of the cost incurred?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Euan Wallace): No recent representations
to my Department on this subject can be traced, but if the hon. Member will send me particulars of any cases of workmen being unable to obtain necessary appliances without hardship owing to having to defray the cost, I will look into the matter and consult, if necessary, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.

Mr. TINKER: I did not quite understand the reply. Did the hon. and gallant Member say he was not aware that persons had to provide these appliances at their own cost, and that he would look into it?

Captain WALLACE: No doubt there are cases, but, as I said in my reply, no recent representations have been made to me. If the hon. Gentleman will give me particulars of cases I will look into them.

Mr. GEOFFREY PETO: Is it not time we had legislation to prevent injuries, and not merely to compensate for them?

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (AIR TRAVEL FACILITIES).

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 40.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is now in a position to make a further announcement on the question of the provision of air travel facilities for Members of Parliament?

Mr. COOPER: Yes, Sir. I am glad to be able to inform the hon. Member that a scheme has been drawn up in consultation with the Air Ministry under which hon. Members desirous of travelling by air will be asked to send in their names to the Fees Office. Where suitable arrangements can be made, such Members will be supplied, by the Fees Office, with a book of special warrants which will enable them on payment of the excess over the first-class rail fare to travel to and from their constituencies by certain approved air lines. I am circulating the particulars of the scheme in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The completion of the arrangements for putting the scheme into force will necessarily take time. Every endeavour will be made to complete them as rapidly as possible, and Members will be notified by the Fees Office as soon as facilities are available in each case.

Mr. MAINWARING: Could not the hon. Gentleman make approaches to the air-line companies to reduce their fares to the level of first-class railway fare?

Following are the particulars:

Arrangements for travelling by Air for Members of Parliament.

1. Members of Parliament desirous of using the authorised air travel facilities will be asked to send in their names to the House of Commons Fees Office, at the same time indicating which air service or services they propose to use.

2. A list of approved Air Services will be kept at the Fees Office and only such services as are included in that list will be recognised for the purpose of these arrangements. The list will be drawn up in consultation with the Air Ministry.

3. Where suitable arrangements can be made, Members who have handed in their names will be supplied by the Fees Office with a book of special air warrants. The necessary air ticket will be obtainable by a Member on presentation at the air company's booking office of a warrant properly completed and on payment by him of the excess cost of the air journey over the cost of the corresponding first class rail journey.

4. For the convenience of Members and the guidance of the air companies there will be shown on the front of the warrant book the Member's name and constituency and particulars of the railway fares (single and return) payable under the present arrangements.

5. The air company will forward the warrant to the Fees Office and receive payment of the appropriate first class rail fare.

6. Tickets issued by the air companies under these conditions will be stamped "M.P." and in the event of the return half of an air ticket not being used, it must be handed in at the Fees Office who will arrange for the refund of the appropriate amount by the company. The air companies will not be authorised to make refunds direct to Members.

7. No warrant may be used by a Member and no payments will be made by the Fees Office in respect of air journeys made otherwise than in accordance with the above conditions. Any expense incurred in travelling to or from the airport must be borne by the Member.

TRANSPORT (PEDESTRIANS' CROSSING-PLACES).

Mr. TINKER: 42.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the danger caused by motorcars standing, sometimes unattended, near pedestrian crossing-places, thereby obstructing the view of both pedestrians and drivers of vehicles; and whether he will consider making it compulsory for vehicles to be kept at a sufficient distance away from the crossings?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Captain Austin Hudson): Regulation 6 of the Pedestrian Crossing Places (Traffic) Provisional Regulations provides that no driver of any vehicle shall cause such vehicle or any part thereof to stop on any crossing unless either

(a) he is prevented from proceeding by circumstances beyond his control, or
(b) it is necessary for him to stop in order to avoid accident.

My right hon. Friend is in consultation with the Commissioner of Police on a suggestion that the Regulations should be strengthened to provide that vehicles should not wait within a length of, say, 25 yards on the near side of a pedestrian crossing for a longer period than is necessary for picking up or setting down passengers or for the loading or unloading of goods.

INTERNATIONAL CURRENCY.

Mr. D. MASON: 43.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has now received official communication of the text of the resolution of the International Chamber of Commerce on stabilisation of currencies adopted at the recent congress in Paris; and whether His Majesty's Government propose to take any action along the lines suggested?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the last part, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) on the 9th July.

BRITISH DOMICILE (COLOURED PERSONS).

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: 44.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will
appoint a small Royal Commission, say of three persons, with wide terms of reference, to investigate all aspects of the difficult and complex problem of coloured peoples domiciled in Great Britain, especially in the dock areas?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given on this subject on Thursday last by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. I have received a copy of the report referred to in his previous question, and will see that it is considered by the Departments concerned. Until that has been done, I do not think it is possible to say whether a further inquiry on this subject is necessary.

AIR ATTACKS (PROTECTION).

Sir WALTER REA (for Mr. GRAHAM WHITE): 38 and 39.
asked the Home Secretary (1), the present approximate cost of providing men and women, respectively, with effective protective clothing against poison gas;
(2) whether any estimates have been prepared of the cost of equipping the people of the Metropolitan area and of the country generally with gas masks and efficient protective clothing against gas attack?

Captain WALLACE: The information at present available is not sufficient to warrant any such estimate.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister what Votes he proposes to take on Thursday; and also what business he proposes to take to-day, in the event of the Motion which stands in his name on the Order Paper being carried?

The PRIME MINISTER: On Thursday, which, as I have already announced, will be a Supply day, the Board of Trade Vote will be taken. With regard to the business for to-day, we hope to get the Committee stage of the Money Resolution standing in the name of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and the first six Orders on the Paper.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I take it that the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to ask the House to sit very late to-night?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope it will not be necessary; it is not at present in my mind. I would point out that, while six Orders sounds a great deal, half of them are entirely non-contentious, and, I think, purely formal.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 204; Noes, 39.

Division No. 270.]
AYES.
[3.25 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Carver, Major William H.
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Fleming, Edward Lascelles


Aske, Sir Robert William
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Fraser, Captain Sir Ian


Assheton, Ralph
Clarry, Reginald George
Ganzoni, Sir John


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Glossop, C. W. H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Glucksteln, Louis Halle


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Cooper, A. Duff
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Crooke, J. Smedley
Goff, Sir Park


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Cross, R. H.
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Crossley, A. C.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Bernays, Robert
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Graves, Marjorie


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Davison, Sir William Henry
Grimston, R. V.


Blindell, James
Dawson, Sir Philip
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Bossom, A. C.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Dickie, John P.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Doran, Edward
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Drewe, Cedric
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Sir Cuthbert


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Duckworth, George A. V.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Dunglass, Lord
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Walter


Burnett, John George
Elmley, Viscount
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)


Butler, Richard Austen
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Meller, Sir Richard James (Mitcham)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Mills, Sir Frederick (Layton, E.)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Hunt, Sir Gerald B.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)


Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Moreing, Adrian C.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Jamieson, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Morgan, Robert H.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univ.)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Moss, Captain H. J.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Knox, Sir Alfred
Mulrhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Strauss, Edward A.


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Norie-Miller, Francis
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Latham, Sir Herbert PaulNunn, William
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Patrick, Colin M.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Levy, Thomas
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Lewis, Oswald
Pike, Cecil F.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Liddall, Walter S.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Llewellin, Major John J.
Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.
Thompson, Sir Luke


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Remer, John R.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. Sir Charles
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)


MacAndrew, Major J. O. (Ayr)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Ross, Ronald D.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Watt, Major George Steven H.


McLean, Major Sir Alan
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Runge, Norah Cecil
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Macqulsten, Frederick Alexander
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Maitland, Adam
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Womersley, Sir Walter


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Worthington, Sir John


Margesson, Capt Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)



Martin, Thomas B.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Sinclair, Col. T. (Green's Univ., Belfast)
Sir George Penny and Lieut.-Colonel




Sir A. Lambert-Ward.


NOES.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. Clement R.
Hamilton, [...]R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Rea, Sir Walter


Banfield, John William
Harris, Sir Percy
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Batey, Joseph
Janner, Barnett
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Curry, A. C.
Jenkins, Sir William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Daggar, George
Johnstons, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Thorne, William James


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Tinker, John Joseph


Edwards, Sir Charles
Lunn, William
West, F. R.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
McEntee, Valentine L.
Wilmot, John


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Mainwaring, William Henry
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Grenfell, David Reel (Glamorgan)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)



Grundy, Thomas W.
Maxton, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Rathbone, Eleanor
Mr. Paling and Mr. Groves.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

South Shields Corporation Bill,

Beckenham Urban District Council Bill,

Ascot District Gas and Electricity Bill,

London Midland and Scottish Railway Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to—

Bournemouth Gas and Water Bill [Lords],

West Riding of Yorkshire Mental Hospitals Board (Superannuation)

Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

CATTLE INDUSTRY (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) [MONEY] (No. 2).

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed:
That it is expedient—

(1) to provide for extending, by not more than thirteen months, the period during which cattle or carcases of cattle must have been sold in order that payments in respect thereof may be made out of the Cattle Fund under section two of the Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1934, as amended by the Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1935; and
(2) to provide for other matters consequential on the matter aforesaid."—(King's Recommendation Signified.)—[Mr. Elliot.]

3.32 p.m.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): This Resolution provides for the extension for a further period of the assistance afforded to cattle producers under the Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1934, and the subsequent legislation. On 26th June approval was given to an extension by the appropriate Ministers under the Emergency Provisions Act, 1935, of the period during which subsidy payments will be made until 30th September, 1935. Hon. members on that occasion, particularly the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert), showed a natural desire for information as to the situation that would arise on 1st October when, as a number of hon. Members pointed out, Parliament in all probability would not be sitting. This financial Resolution provides for a continuance of the payment for a period of 13 months from this date until 31st October, 1936. I am sure that will give great pleasure to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), who at Question Time was pressing that we should have plans extending over a rather longer period. The legislation which, if the Committee approves this Resolution, will be introduced will provide for an extension in the first place for 9 months, that is, until 30th June, 1936. Provision will also be made for a further contingent extension of four months if this should prove to be necessary. This further extension, if required, will be subject to the specific authority of Parliament,
which we hope will also please hon. Members who desire that close control should be kept over this procedure.
The proposals before the Committee do not indicate, as I have seen suggested, that there has been a breakdown of the negotiations which have been taking place. These negotiations are still taking place with the Governments of the Dominions and Argentina on the long-term proposals outlined by the Government in their White Paper of March, 1935. These proposals do not indicate that the Government take a pessimistic view of the prospects of a satisfactory agreement. The negotiations are necessarily difficult, and indeed protracted. They concern a trade which as a whole comes to £166,000,000 per annum, that is, £64,000,000 for the beef trade, £40,000,000 for the mutton and lamb trade, and £62,000,000 for the pig meat trade. That is a very substantial sum in home production and in international trade and one of which we must have every care when we are negotiating, as we hope to negotiate, long-term proposals which concern the livelihood and purchasing power of scores of thousands of producers in this country and hundreds of thousands in the overseas Empire and in foreign countries with whom we trade. I think time spent in making sure that the foundations of a permanent plan are well and truly laid is time well worth while.
On the last occasion when this subject was debated hon. Members opposite complained that the House was being asked to approve of interim measures without having before them the Government's long-term policy. I did my best on that occasion to restate it, and I am going to anticipate criticism by restating it once more. It is found in two paragraphs of the White Paper of March, 1935, first, that it is the firm intention of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to safeguard the position of the United Kingdom livestock industry and, secondly, that the policy which His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom desire to bring into operation as soon as they are in a position to do so is to assist the United Kingdom livestock industry, according to the needs of the market, from the proceeds of a levy on imports, with a preference to the Dominions, overseas producers being left free to regulate their
exports to this market themselves, that is to say, an earmarked tariff on meat imports the proceeds to go to the home industry and orderly marketing secured by general agreement. That provides a definition of a long-term policy which it would not be possible to surpass either in brevity or in clearness.
While negotiations are still in progress, I am not in a position to make anything more than a general statement, but I should like to state very clearly that in those negotiations we have found a strong, and general, appreciation of the fact that disorderly consigning to the United Kingdom meat market will bring nothing but ruin to overseas producers. And much of the negotiations in which we have been engaged revolves round the necessary conditions for a regulated market for the meat trade both in this country and overseas. As stated in the White Paper—and I should like to repeat it again—the Government could not regard as a satisfactory permanent arrangement, a system under which the responsibility for the regulation of the market would rest upon them alone, but if, as I think is not improbable, there is a general desire that the supplies consigned to this market, which is the greatest, and, indeed, practically the only import meat market of the world, should be adjusted in a reasonable manner to the capacity of the market, the United Kingdom Government would not be unwilling to co-operate in this as in other commodities. Practical means of achieving this result are being carefully examined. These also form part of the negotiations which are now in progress with the Dominions, and, indeed, with the foreign suppliers as well.
The Committee will wish to know how far we have gone towards realising these ideals in practice. Let me then, take one great section of the meat trade, the mutton and lamb section, covering £40,000,000 a year, and, by the way, 90 per cent. of it being derived from Empire sources, either home or overseas. Mutton and Iamb prices in this country have been reasonably steady since their recovery from the disastrous levels of 1932. The market has been fully supplied, but not over suppled. Consumers have received the supplies at reasonable prices. They have not complained, and producers have got a return for their products which enables them to keep in production. The
producer has got prices which are reflected in the prices for mutton and lamb rising from 7¼d. in 1932, as the average for the year, to 10¾d. in May, 1934, and 10¼d. in May, 1935. These are prices for English mutton. That has gone with no recognisable rise in price to the consumers. The retail price in pence per pound for British legs of mutton has remained steady at 1s. 3½d. in 1932, in June, 1934, and in June, 1935. That seems to indicate that the consumer has received his supplies at a steady and reasonable rate, and it does show that what we desire, namely, a reasonable return to the producer without an undue rise of retail prices can be accomplished, however illogical it appears in theory, and there are the figures showing what has been done in practice. We have done that by the quota, and nobody wishes to disturb the quota for mutton and lamb. In fact, New Zealand has shown the greatest anxiety not to transfer to a tariff basis for mutton and lamb.
These arrangements hinge upon getting agreements among the producers, and it is essential that they should all agree. Within the last few days we have secured an additional agreement between the three parties mainly concerned, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, which will govern the supplies of mutton and lamb to this market not only to the end of this year, but until the end of next year, an 18 months period. It may be of interest to the Committee to have the figures. For the six months ended 31st December, 1935, New Zealand will send 1,578,000 cwt. and Australia 950,000 cwt. During 1936 New Zealand will send 3,900,000 cwt., and Australia, 1,750,000 cwt., provision being made for adjustment upwards or downwards in the light of later estimates of United Kingdom production and the capacity of the United Kingdom market. There is the solid proof of the negotiations which have been carried on, and it indicates most clearly that there is no question whatever of these negotiations breaking down. This is common sense, long-term planning. We can look ahead at any rate for 18 months with some sense of security.
I turn to the pig-meat trade covering a total of some £60,000,000. Arrangements have been made for the supplies of frozen pork, excluding baconers, from the Dominions during the six months July
to December, 1935. Baconers are, of course, already covered in the arrangements made for 1935 in connection with the bacon scheme. So that, together with the arrangements for beef and veal, on which also we have been able to secure an arrangement lasting until the end of this year, the whole field of meat supplies from the Dominions up to the end of this year has now been covered by the negotiations which have been going on. I said during the Debate on 26th June that the arrangements for the supplies of beef and veal for the second six months of this year were under discussion with Dominion Governments. Definite arrangements with Australia and New Zealand have now been made to cover this period. Australia had available 850,000 cwt. of beef and veal for arrival in this country in the third quarter. She has agreed so to arrange her supplies for the third and fourth quarters as a whole that the total quantity will not exceed 1,150,000 cwt., of which 160,000 cwt. will be chilled beef. We are beginning to tackle the difficult question of the entry of the Dominions into the chilled beef market, an entry made theoretically possible by a recent scientific development, although it is agreed on all hands that large stocks of beef suitable for consignment as chilled beef to this market are not available in Australia and New Zealand. New Zealand has agreed that her supplies of beef and veal during the six months will not exceed 478,000 cwt., of which 66,000 cwt. will be chilled beef. There is also an agreed carry-over of 70,000 cwt. from the second quarter into the third. The net result of these arrangements is to ease the weight on the market of imported supplies during the fourth quarter, which is a serious quarter from our point of view when our own heavy supplies are coming off the grass. The supply of beef and veal from the two great southern Dominions will then be something like 100,000 cwt. less than those during the corresponding period of last year.
These interlocking arrangements are precisely those which we desire to see carried through by agreement, and which we have secured as a result of the financial provisions made by this House in the past, and it is to bring these to a triumphant conclusion that I ask for the
further provision from the Committee this afternoon. The course of events in the meat market during the last few weeks has clearly emphasised the need for an orderly arrangement of supplies in the interests of all suppliers. In the third quarter we have done our best to accommodate the rather heavy supplies coming forward, as a result of the drought, from Australia, which meant that they had to kill and despatch here larger quantities than they otherwise would have done. But the supplies of chilled beef from the Dominions and South America have been so heavy that the price of good quality chilled beef fell by something like 15 to 20 per cent. in a few days and brought the price of chilled beef below that of frozen. Matters became so serious that the drastic step had to be taken of freezing down this good quality meat so that it could be held over in cold store. An instance of that sort has done more to convince overseas shippers than any amount of argument by myself, by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade or by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Dominions. Glut supplies like that ruin the producer and do not benefit the consumer.
I am very hopeful that we are beginning to see our way out of these difficulties, and I regard the arrangements to which I have referred as very definite steps in the right direction. These steps towards regulating the market will not by themselves solve the problem of the United Kingdom cattle industry. As I have said in the House and in negotiations, to solve the problems here by either a straight tariff or by quota cuts alone would involve tremendous interference with trade and with the consuming power of this market, which it is our great effort in every way to preserve, because the maintenance of the high consuming power of the British market is of paramount importance not merely to ourselves but to the whole world if these great supplies are to be disposed of. It is clear that if we are not to raise the general price level by a tariff going to the Exchequer and if we are not to apply these very drastic quota cuts, we must have a continuation of the present policy. Therefore, until we are in a position to feed the subsidy fund from the proceeds of a levy, the Government feel that we must ask the House to accept the responsibility of making these advances from the
Exchequer. If we can reach agreement with the Dominions and Argentina on a long-term plan on the lines of the White Paper of March last, it will be necessary to put before Parliament legislation of a comprehensive character. The Committee will be aware that there are domestic aspects of the problem, such as efficiency methods, improvement of marketing methods, improvement of slaughtering methods, to which the Government attach considerable importance.
Parliament will expect, and will be afforded, full opportunity of debating these problems as a whole. None of us would suggest that we can usefully enter upon a discussion of these problems now, and certainly we cannot solve them before the House rises for the Summer Recess. We are therefore asking the Committee to approve the Resolution which extends the cattle subsidy beyond the 30th September. If an agreement is reached it is the intention that the Exchequer subsidy arrangements should be replaced by a levy subsidy arrangement as soon as Parliament has approved the necessary legislation. It may, unfortunately, happen that we are unable to reach an agreement. In that event the Government propose that the subsidy should be continued until the 30th June, 1936, and if necessary till the 31st October, 1936. The Committee will have seen from the memorandum on the Financial Resolution the financial liability which is involved. If the payments continue until the 30th June, 1936, it is estimated that the sum which Parliament will be asked to provide will not exceed £3,000,000. If circumstances arise which make it necessary for Parliament to be asked to approve an extension for a further four months, until the 31st October, 1936, the further liability to the public is estimated not to exceed £1,333,000.
It is intended that sums advanced from the Exchequer to the Cattle Fund under the authority of this legislation, including the advances to cover the costs of administration, shall, together with the advances already made, or to be made, under existing legislation, be recoverable in full by the Exchequer, as circumstances may permit, from the proceeds of any levy which may hereafter be collected upon imported meat and livestock. These, therefore, are advances and not payments. They are advances contingent
upon the levies which it may be possible to collect. The price level of home beef determines the amount of assistance which may be necessary out of these levies. The proposals before the Committee lead towards and interlock with the arrangements which the Government will bring into operation as soon as agreement can be reached or, failing agreement, as soon as treaty obligations permit. Hon. Members opposite may say that this money is to be voted because the Government cannot make up their minds. Do they think that the Government ought to abrogate these treaty obligations? They are severe critics of the Government if they make unilateral agreements which are supposed to interfere with treaty obligations. I would ask them to consider whether they will ask us to make up our minds and then brush away any signed agreement into which we have entered.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: indicated dissent.

Mr. ELLIOT: I am glad the hon. Member for the Don Valley indicates that that will not be so. This is not money being voted because the Government cannot make up their minds. It is money being voted because the Government have scrupulously regarded treaty obligations. I hope that this arrangement and the fact that it interlocks with our long-term policy will enable the livestock industry to make its plans well ahead. If you are going to benefit the United Kingdom livestock industry you must have a subsidy the effect of which will be felt right through the industry, down to the breeder. The store man has had a, very bad time, and especially in the outlying parts of the country he has not received benefit from some of the assistance which the House has given. It is therefore necessary that in any long-term policy the benefit should be felt by the store man as well.
There is no doubt that the emergency measures, apart from helping the beef feeder in a weak market, have contributed to some extent in maintaining the prices of store cattle. Some classes of store cattle this Spring have been realising as much as £1 per head more than a year ago. But since last Autumn it has been natural for feeders to take a short view of the situation and to concentrate their purchases on those forward animals which could be finished
before the date they feared the subsidy would expire. The measures now proposed will afford beef producers a degree of security for a further 15 months, and I think that confidence in the future will bring about better prices for younger store cattle. It is significant that in the last month or two yearlings have been making 5s. per head more than a year ago.
During this period we are also doing our utmost to keep up the quality of our beef cattle. While not disputing the opinion of some feeders that prime beasts should kill out at more than 54 per cent., there is no doubt that without the condition as to finish laid down by the Cattle Committee a larger number of unfinished cattle which would not kill out at 54 per cent. would be slaughtered. The Cattle Committee's figure has given a standard up to which the beef industry as a whole must work. Continued working to that minimum standard will benefit the public by making available to them a larger volume of well-finished beasts and will also stimulate a further improvement in quality in both store and finished beasts. The home producer must work for quality as his main criterion. He cannot go merely for mass production, like some consignors to the market, but must work to get trade for a quality article.
These are not ad hoc but transitional measures. We are passing through a transitional stage in the beef industry. We are slowly restoring into order the chaos in which the industry was in 1932, and particularly in the Autumn of that year. We can see clearly the point we are aiming at. Our policy has been clearly defined, but we cannot bring it into operation by a wave of a wand or even for some time by Act of Parliament, unless we can secure the agreement of the countries with whom we have treaty obligations.
One thing I ask the Committee to believe is that the Government will hold to their undertaking to safeguard the position of the United Kingdom livestock industry. We are of opinion that this undertaking can best be implemented in present circumstances by an assurance which will enable this industry to plan ahead for at least a year and a quarter.
That assurance is contained in the Financial Resolution which I now submit to the Committee for approval. I trust that the course of retail prices will show that we have done our utmost to combine these measures of assistance to the producers with the maintenance of a reasonable charge to the consumer which will not check consumption, which will not make an undue inroad upon the scanty household budget of those to whom we are looking to consume this article once it has been produced. Almost alone among the great countries of the world we have succeeded in maintaining prices and agricultural wages without an undue burden on the consumer and without checking the consumption in this land. It may be that some of these measures are unorthodox, but I say that the proof of experience has shown that the policy which we are following out is one which may be reasonably followed to-day by the Committee.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I am sure that every Member of the Committee will be interested in the statement we have just heard. The Minister has at long last informed us what the policy of the Government is, that is, what the Government planning really means, for long-dated subsidies or for long-dated levies. The right hon. Gentleman dignifies that as a policy. If that is the best that can be done by the Government, the result will be, as we on this side of the Committee, expect, at all events, not that stability or fixity to which agriculturists are looking forward and hoping for, but a glorious uncertainty where they are unable to develop, in spite of the fact, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, that they have 15 months in which to prepare their plans and to plan ahead. After all, the cattle side of the agricultural industry is one where they need to know something more than what is going to happen during the next 12 months or so. They ought to be able to visualise the possibilities of the market for many years ahead. Still, all these debates have been very useful, and we have had many of them. Since July, 1934, cattle industry emergency provisions have been before the House on no fewer than 12 occasions. The Financial Resolutions and Bills have produced about 10 debates.
I remember that in July, 1934, the right hon. Gentleman asked for seven
months breathing-space, and he thought that during that time they would be able to bring into existence their long-term policy. It is quite true to say that, so far as a long-term policy can be embodied in a small Financial Memorandum, the long-term policy of the Government was recorded in July, 1934, but by 18th February of this year the industry or the Minister was still gasping, and he had to have a further three months breathing-space. By 26th June more oxygen was required. He asked for a further breathing-space. But now we have a new Government with Ministers without portfolio, Ministers of the universe with all the brains of real statesmen, and now the right hon. Gentleman moves forward from his seven months breathing-space and his three months dose of oxygen to 13 months on this occasion. I wonder whether the new Minister or Ministers have produced the new policy, because it seems to require one or two explanations. The 30th June is probably taken as the date for the conclusion of the Argentine trade agreement, and that without breaking the treaty or the Government's obligations they could call for a levy or adopt other measures, but they are not even sure about the Dominions by June, 1936. Therefore, they take power further to extend for a period of four months the subsidy to the end of the autumn, making 13 months in all.
It may be that one, two, three or four explanations can be given for the nine months or 13 months extension. It may be that there is an election probability or possibility about it. One of my friends, when we saw the new Memorandum on the Financial Resolution, said it was rather curious that there should be seven months to start with, three months on 18th February this year, a further three months extension on 26th June, and now a nine months extension to June, 1936, to be followed by a provisional four months beyond June, 1936. It seems to me that someone examined the situation and ought by that means to give us the date of the general election. I am not conversant with the Einstein theory. I am not a mathematician up to the point that I can decide from these various quarterly, seven-monthly and nine-monthly periods when the general election is coming along. Still, I confess that these debates
have been very useful, and I think that every hon. Member and right hon. Member who has had the good fortune, or misfortune, either to listen willingly, or to hear the debates because he could not help it, must have learnt a good deal from them, and it is no exception to-day.
We were all interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman's success with mutton, bacon and pork, not that I think that a quantitative restriction is the best means of solving the problem of superabundance. But I would like to ask one question on the wonderful achievement that has been obtained by quantitative regulations with regard to imports. He told us that in three periods, 1933, 1934, and 1935, wholesale prices had gone from one figure to another, showing an increase at the last date of 1¼d. per lb. while the remarkable admission was made that for all three periods the retail price remained the same—1s. 3½d. Has the right hon. Gentleman been able to ascertain who made the sacrifice of 1¼d. per lb.? Was it the producer, or was it someone between the wholesaler and the retailer? It would be interesting to know who actually sacrificed that 1¼d. per lb. It might be that if the problem were analysed closely enough, we should find, perhaps, that similar results could obtain in relation to beef, and if we could find that somebody between the producer and the retailer were taking 1¼d. per lb. more than they really needed, or were entitled to, for ordinary business purposes, that is really in excess of the subsidy which we are paying, and that, on the basis of the right hon. Gentleman's calculation, would solve the meat problem. I beg him to pursue that question a little further. If it can be done with mutton, why not with beef? If he can obviate the necessity of a direct subsidy or levy, I think it is the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to do more than take credit for having produced these results, where the wholesale price increases, while the retail price remains the same, because it seems to indicate that somebody previously had been taking more than they were entitled to take.
Coming back to the question at issue, I said a moment ago we have had approximately 10 debates, and all have been very useful. We have acquired a good deal of knowledge, and although the problem still persists, it shows how stubborn
agricultural problems really are. The right hon. Gentleman said he could not solve these problems by the mere waving of a magic wand. I remember somewhere about 1929 or 1930 the Minister of Labour in the Labour Government was chastised, I think by the right hon. Gentleman himself, and certainly by many of his colleagues, for saying that they could not expect him to fetch rabbits out of a hat like a conjuror. They made that the point of their ridicule for many months. We shall be more generous to the right hon. Gentleman. We know that he cannot solve any one of these problems by merely waving a magic wand. We are infinitely more sympathetic to him, because we appreciate the delicacy and complexity of the problem much more than they would understand our problem at that time. The right hon. Gentleman, in all the debates, has outlined from time to time his remedies. He has said that the problem is that prices are unremunerative and supplies superfluous, and therefore his first step is to apply quantitative restriction, and then give a temporary subsidy or breathing-space, so that a long-range policy, the application of a levy, can be applied, when agreed upon. Then the right hon. Gentleman tells the Committee and the House, and, through the House, the country, that the definite hopes of the Government are maximum home supplies at minimum prices consistent with reasonable remuneration for the producer. He sets out to achieve this by imposing a levy upon imports and a subsidy for the home producer, and he hopes that that is going to be a last and final solution of this highly complex problem; but I doubt it, as I shall explain in a few minutes.
Hon. Members on these benches have from time to time expressed their point of view as to the cause of the present prices and the present misfortunes of the producer in this country. The right hon. Gentleman's explanation is increased imports, decreased consumption, and changes in habit. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) gave four reasons for the misfortune of the agricultural industry, namely, 10 years of deflation, Ottawa, the Argentine and the conscience of the President of the Board of Trade. I do not know how far the blame can be apportioned, how much the
conscience of the President of the Board of Trade has affected the problem, or how much the Argentine or Ottawa have affected it, but I am sure that the hon. Member for East Aberdeen, if in the House when the Ottawa Agreement was passed, supported it.
The hon. and gallant Member for Maldon (Sir E. Ruggles-Brise) has an extraordinary point of view which is well worth analysing by the right hon. Gentleman and the Government. He says that purchasing power has increased, the cost of living decreased and there are fewer unemployed. He, therefore, concludes that there must be more spending power, and he says that this increased spending power is expressed in this form; that people who are better off are only buying the best cuts of British beef, that the inferior cuts are left, they go to waste, and that when the butcher meets the farmer he declares that he has much more waste now than hitherto and that he can only afford to give him less for his cattle. By implication the hon. and gallant Member would prefer less spending power instead of more. It is a point of view which, of course, he is quite entitled to advance. The right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) has a, very easy solution. He says that the Minister must keep prices up, and if I were an agricultural member probably that would be my agricultural policy too. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Mahon (Mr. Turton), wanting to reprimand me because I made a reference to a levy, declared that we were all wrong. He said that it was not a subsidy, it was merely an advance to the industry which would ultimately be paid back.
All these points of view may be useful, but they are rather conflicting, and the only thing which emerges is that prices still persist in being low. This Government, or some other government, will have to find a solution for this very complex problem unless we are going to find fewer men working on the land than is the case to-day. Last week I asked for the figures of employment and the right hon. Gentleman in his answer told me that between 1930, when that wretched Labour Government was in office, and 1935, when the National Government of all the talents had had four years in which to solve this problem, there had been a reduction in England and Wales of 54,000 agricultural workers and a reduction
in Scotland of 2,250. It may be that machines are displacing men on the land as is the case in the coal pits, we expect that to happen here and there, and the other day I saw the announcement of a machine which will plant and water 12,000 cabbages in an hour. Of course, men are never employed if machines will do the work cheaper.

Earl WINTERTON: It may interest the hon. Member to know that in the United States of America there are 1,000,000 fewer people working on the land than 10 years ago. It is the same in every country.

Mr. WILLIAMS: It is the responsibility of the Government of the United States, and also of His Majesty's Government to deal with the residue.

Earl WINTERTON: It has nothing to do with agriculture.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am not complaining that agriculture is losing these men because machines are taking their place, but I do complain that, despite the loss of 54,000 labourers in four years, agriculture has still to come to this House and ask for a, subsidy, a levy, or some artificial assistance in one form or another. That is the position with regard to labour; we have lost 54,000 labourers. The right hon. Gentleman has told us what the Government are doing. It is a little difficult to reconcile the statements that are made. In July, 1934, we were told that the long-term policy was a levy, while the Secretary of State for the Dominions a few days ago told us that they had come down on the side of a straight tariff. Now in the memorandum on the Financial Resolution we are told that a levy is to be the policy. It is rather difficult to know exactly where we are, but, apparently, the Minister has settled the matter definitely, and we will take his word that a levy is the final decision of the Government for a lasting solution of this problem. Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that the application of a levy will solve the problem? He knows that the disparity between the prices of imported meat and British meat is anywhere between 3d. and 5d. per lb. Assuming that a levy of 1d. per lb. is imposed, the margin will still remain between 2d. and 4d. Does he expect that the consumers of inferior quality meat will transfer their affection
to English meat? I should regard it as a very doubtful possibility. The people who buy inferior meat, whether it is Argentine chilled or Australian frozen, do so largely because they cannot afford to buy English meat. I take a totally different view from that of the hon. and gallant Member for Maldon. If the mining industry were really prosperous and employing the usual number of men, 900,000 or 1,000,000, the agricultural industry in this country, and particularly the beef producer, would be infinitely better off than he is to-day. I cannot believe that the section of the community which buys frozen or chilled meat because of the size of their purse are going to be diverted by the application of a levy into consuming British beef. I wish they could be persuaded to buy British beef. Nothing would give me greater joy than to see the Minister of Agriculture without a problem.
This is a problem which does not start and finish in the British Isles; it extends to investments in Argentine and to investments in the Dominions, and all sorts of difficulties crop up. In any case I am doubtful whether the application of a levy will solve such a highly complex problem as that which confronts the right hon. Gentleman. It is true, of course, that if a levy were collected on imported beef, chilled or frozen, and distributed among the farmers that to that extent the farmers would benefit, and they would simply continue to sell their meat at uneconomic prices. There is no guarantee that the sales would increase, and I say that the position will remain the same after the application of a levy as it is now, uncertain, unsatisfactory and unreal. In the second place, a levy is the most inequitable thing that can be conceived. The means test was bad enough in all conscience and a levy is on a par with that.

Earl WINTERTON: The question of a levy is most interesting and I suppose, Mr. Chairman, that we shall be able to discuss it in all its bearings. At the same time I understand that a levy is not to be imposed, and I should like to know whether it will be in order to discuss it in all its bearings?

The CHAIRMAN: No, I think we must remember that the proposal we are debating is to continue an existing subsidy.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am sure it will be within your recollection that the Minister in his speech read out the memorandum on the Financial Resolution, including the long paragraph referring to the levy, and I think that the debate will lose its importance if hon. Members are not able to make some reference to it. The £3,000,000 which we are invited to vote is promised back to the Treasury by means of a levy, which may or may not be collected in the years ahead. After the Minister's statement, I do not see how it will be possible to continue the debate without some reference to the ultimate source from which this £3,000,000 is to be paid.

Earl WINTERTON: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member and I only intervened in order to safeguard the rights of subsequent speakers in the Debate. If a levy is to be discussed we are entitled to give reasons why we should prefer a straight duty.

The CHAIRMAN: What I meant to indicate was that the noble Lord would probably not be able to give as full an answer as he might wish. While the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) was perhaps getting a little bit near the edge, I will not say any more than that. He is quite entitled to reply to the remarks of the Minister.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I can assure the Noble Lord that I do not complain of his intervention. I rather welcome it if there is any point in dispute. I do not regard a levy as a good policy and one which should be followed, because it will have no lasting effect, and it is doubtful whether it will ultimately be beneficial to the industry. It is inequitable because it merely transfers burdens now being carried by the Treasury on to the backs of the consumers of inferior quality meat, frozen and chilled, and it is also the worst form of taxation. The Wheat Act has been mentioned. There is a vast difference between the Wheat Act and this subsidy. We are importing to-day about 80 per cent. of our wheat as against 50 per cent. of our beef, and the wheat we import is of the highest quality and consumed by every section of the community. On the other hand, all the meat we import is of inferior quality to home-produced beef and to impose a levy on this inferior imported meat, consumed by the
poorer sections of the community, in order that the consumers of the higher quality home-produced meat can have it at an uneconomic price to me positively outrageous.

Mr. ELLIOT: Does not the hon. Member agree that this is rather a geographical matter, and that as home-produced meat is largely consumed in the North and chilled and frozen meat largely consumed in the South this is a levy on the most prosperous part of the island in favour of the less prosperous part to which both the hon. Member and I belong?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I do not accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. He knows that the levy on imported meat which is bought by the poorer sections of the people will go to subsidise the meat which is bought by the well-to-do people. I do not see how the right hon. Gentleman in equity can justify a levy which falls on the poorest of the people in order that the consumers of higher grade meat can have it at an uneconomic price. If it could be proved definitely and conclusively that we are all satisfied about efficiency in production, in feeding and breeding and marketing, and that kind of thing, if we were all satisfied that the last word in efficiency had been said and that still something must be done for the industry, I would ten thousand times rather have a direct subsidy from the Treasury than a levy on inferior imported beef such as is consumed by the poor. At all events the well-to-do persons who consume prime quality home-produced meat and pay for it a price less than it costs to produce it, ought to be made to bear the other proportion through the channels of Income Tax, and ought not to draw it from the poorer sections of the community. It certainly is inequitable and I do not see how any hon. Member can support it.
In one of his speeches in which he explained subsidies the right hon. Gentleman quoted a statement by one of his political friends, who had said that protection was disastrous and free trade was impossible. He ought to have added that a levy on meat was outrageous, since it merely shifted the burden on to the poor. On the question of efficiency the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government were pressing forward with
new marketing and slaughtering and auctioning systems which they regarded as indispensable. I remember that in February, in reply to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. Mason), he said that the Government were adopting an important marketing and slaughtering scheme with a view to improving efficiency. We have not seen that scheme yet. The subsidy has been in existence for 12 months and the Government have been in office for four years. We know that a very useful report was produced and recommendations were made, and the Committee are entitled to know now when the marketing and slaughtering scheme is to become possibility. The noble Lord, Lord Astor, in reviewing the meat side of the agricultural industry, referred to marketing and slaughtering and central auctioning, and suggested that it was not beyond the bounds of possibility for a most up-to-date auctioning system to be brought into operation, and he estimated that approximately a penny a pound could be saved to the producer, Lord Astor is an expert.

Viscountess ASTOR: He is always right.

Mr. WILLIAMS: He is entitled to express an opinion upon this agricultural problem. I did not know the Noble Lady was present, or I may not have made that remark, but having made it I put it forward for the Minister's examination. I do not know whether an up-to-date and central auction system and an improved slaughtering system could be made responsible for saving a penny a pound. If it could, that is the exact amount that the Minister is granting in a subsidy. The Committee on four different occasions within 12 months have been invited to pass £3,000,000, £1,300,000 and £4,300,000. The Committee have always been very generous to the Minister of Agriculture; they have granted almost everything he has asked for. It seems to me that it is now time that we demanded of the right hon. Gentleman a quid pro quo. I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, instead of encouraging agriculturists, has discouraged them from doing anything to improve their efficiency. He wrote a foreword to a book by an ex-Member of this House; I think it was Mr. Blundell. Mr. Blundell had suggested that there ought to be improved marketing schemes before protection.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it ought to be put the opposite way. History has proved that if you protect before you insist on efficiency you simply do not get efficiency. The Prime Minister in one of his recent speeches said that there had been generations of neglect of agriculture. We are all agreed. The one right hon. Gentleman who knows that more than anyone else is the Minister of Agriculture, for he has been working at top speed and overtime every day since he occupied his present office, in trying to get order out of chaos. He has not been very successful. It is generations of neglect and the discouragement of the farmers by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that have brought us to the present pitch. It has been a hand-to-mouth system for generations.
I agreed with the right hon. Gentleman when he spoke of honouring our treaty obligations. If the Government had honoured all their treaty obligations Europe would not be in the state of turmoil in which it is to-day. There would have been a great chance of reducing many of the barriers to trade that are reflecting themselves in the agricultural industry. It is because the Government have not honoured all their treaty obligations that the state of turmoil through Europe and the world is what it is, and that economic stability has been made well-nigh impossible. The sooner Europe and the world can get back to some sense of economic co-operation by reducing trade barriers, the sooner will not only agriculture but all our industries begin to prosper. We sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman in his multiplicity of agricultural problems, but because of the methods adopted by the Government from time to time and the Chancellor's discouragement of agricultural efficiency, whatever our sympathy with the Minister may be we are obliged to vote against the Government.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. LAMBERT: Never have I admired the charm and ingenuity of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture more than this afternoon. He made a most charming speech and tried to gloss over the fact that the Government have not a permanent agricultural policy. No one can describe as permanent a policy that is based on a subsidy until October, 1936. That cannot be
a permanent policy, and I cannot imagine any breeder of cattle laying down store stock because of a subsidy that may come to an end in October of next year. What I suggest as a necessary corollary to this Resolution is that there should be an extension of the life of this Parliament. Let us have another 13 months of this Parliament, and then we shall be certain that my right hon. Friend the Minister is here to conduct a permanent agricultural policy. Who can know who will come back at the General Election? I would like to know.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) takes a great interest in agricultural matters. He has quoted figures with regard to agricultural labour. I noted those figures when they were given on 11th July. The hon. Member is perfectly right. The number of labourers on the land is decreasing, and it has decreased very rapidly in the last year. Last year there was a decrease of 27,000 in the total of agricultural workers in England and Wales. Since 1921, when these returns were first issued, there has been a decrease of no less than 195,000 labourers on the land. I do not know what my right hon. Friend the Minister thinks about it, but I say there is room for a great deal more labour on the land. Reference has been made to machinery and its displacement of labour, but for agricultural production of the most intense kind intelligent labour and intelligent direction are wanted.

Earl WINTERTON: Much more of it.

Mr. LAMBERT: Yes, much more of it. I regret this terrible depletion of the agricultural industry. Healthy men are going from the country into the towns and the change is weakening the nation. My right hon. Friend told us of disorderly marketing and the domination of foreign meat importers. This is the only country in the world that would be so asinine as to permit a very large proportion of its meat imports to be controlled by foreign, American firms. To my mind it is amazing. Smithfield is very largely dominated by American firms and we have disorderly marketing. I do not understand why the British Government have so long tolerated this foreign domination. My right hon. Friend says
that it has dislocated the supplies. He said that they had been obliged to freeze chilled meat. There is something else to which I can make only a passing reference. I expect that their Income Tax returns are pretty skilfully framed. At any rate they do not pay the Super-tax that British firms have to pay. I ask the Minister when he is dealing with this matter to look into the control of our meat markets by foreign firms.
Personally, I welcome this temporary subsidy because without it the beef producers would inevitably face ruin. But we do not take it as a long-term policy. It is merely a, step. I would say to hon. Members on the Labour Benches that if they permit British agriculture to be destroyed, if they paralyse the whole agricultural industry and are dependent on the foreign firms to which I have referred, they will have to pay a very heavy price some time, when those firms get a bigger grip than they have to-day. We have had these matters before us many times and I am not going to make a long speech, but I would point out again to the Committee and to the country that the agricultural industry has been harassed beyond measure. There is no other industry in which wages are fixed but prices are not fixed. I do not complain that the wages as fixed are too high but the fact that they cannot be paid is shown by the number of men who are leaving the land. In agriculture costs have been fixed but unregulated and disorderly supplies have been allowed to come in and it is the duty of the Government to regulate those supplies.
My suggestion would be a straight tariff but I cannot enter into that question now. Not only have we to bear these fixed costs but we have to meet competition from countries which have depreciated currencies and that is another good reason indeed why the Government should come to the help of the agricultural industry. Personally, I have not the smallest doubt that, provided an adequate financial inducement were offered to them, people would rather live in the country than in the towns. I am sure that hon. Members opposite who represent miners will agree that it would be far better for their men to be working on the surface of the earth in the sunshine producing their own food than to be working in the bowels of the earth delving for coal to
export to Denmark in order to buy Danish bacon. I would infinitely rather see the miner on the land.
My right hon. Friend the Minister made some reference to a comprehensive long term policy. We cannot go into that question now but I would give my right hon. Friend the warning. Is he sure that he will be here to carry out such a policy? Who knows what is going to happen at the next Election? Some of us will come back, I hope, but who knows whether my right hon. Friend will be here to carry out the comprehensive policy to which he has referred. He also said that there must be improvement in slaughtering and improvement in marketing. They can be improved but do not let changes be forced on the industry by the Ministry of Agriculture. The marketing schemes of the Ministry up to now have been an absolute failure. I make no bones about saying it. I do not want to see any more of them. In fact I would like the Government to borrow Herr Hitler and have a purge of the agricultural department. There are too many of those theorists there.

Mr. COVE: Give them plenty of money.

Mr. LAMBERT: Give plenty of money to whom? If the hon. Member is referring to the agricultural industry I would only say that we do not want "plenty of money." We only want fair play. If we were paid as well as the teachers we should be doing well. If hon. Members opposite think they are going to embarrass me by their interruptions they are making a mistake. I am warning my right hon. Friend that if the Government are to have a comprehensive policy they should let it come from practical men and not from unpractical theorists. I, of course, accept this subsidy. We have no alternative. I would have preferred, however, a permanent policy to encourage the agricultural industry to develop to a far greater extent than is being done at present, the production of our own food from our own soil.

4.50 p.m.

Colonel Sir EDWARD RUGGLES-BRISE: I only intervene because the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) referred to a speech which I made on the cattle industry some two months ago. The hon. Member, I am sure, desires to be perfectly fair and I
may remind him that in that speech I merely gave a picture, showing one of the reasons why the whole of the beef produced did not go into consumption. I showed that one of the effects was to reduce the price which the butcher was prepared to pay to the feeder. I think the hon. Member will agree with me on that point. Where I differ from him is in the conclusion which he has drawn from that picture. I submit that his conclusion is quite wrong and he has put into my mouth words from which I must disassociate myself. He suggests that I presented the picture which I then drew, as an argument that the purchasing power of the people should be decreased.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: No.

Sir E. RUGGLES-BRISE: I think if the hon. Member refers to the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow he will find that he used words to that effect.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman realises that I would not misrepresent him willingly. I think I said that the implication was that at present we had too much spending power, but I did not suggest that the hon. and gallant Member was advocating that people should have less spending power.

Sir E. RUGGLES-BRISE: I accept the hon. Gentleman's explanation and I would like to add that on many platforms throughout the country and in this House I have said over and over again that the prosperity of the mass of the people and particularly of those engaged in the mining industry, had a direct re-action on the prosperity of agriculture in general and the beef trade in particular. I repeat that statement now. I was rather amazed that the hon. Member should venture on a statement pretending to show that the present National Government was responsible for the economic chaos in the world which had caused this general fall in wholesale prices and had embarrassed the British farmer to such a degree. Surely if any British Government ever made a real contribution to bringing about the world crisis it was that Government of which the hon. Member for Don Valley was such a distingushed ornament. I am sure the Committee realise that the only reasons why the Minister asks for this further advance are, first, that we have to honour our
treaty obligations And second that there has been a disappointing delay in carrying out negotiations which it was hoped would have been completed long ere this. We have to take the situation as we find it and the Government are taking the only course they can take, consistent with their declared intention and policy towards the British farmer. Over and over again it has been stated by Members of the Government and particularly by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture that it is a definite part of the Government's policy to see that agriculture should not be allowed to fall into further decay, and that it should receive such assistance as may be necessary to tide it over until the world crisis finally passes and agricultural products can be sold at ordinary economic levels.
I think the Committee and certainly those Members who represent agricultural constituencies, ought to be grateful to the Government and to my right hon. Friend for performing what must be the ungrateful task of asking for this further advance. Do not let us forget that my right hon. Friend has stated definitely that the advance which he is now proposing is intended to be repayable when the Government have had the time and the opportunity to put their full policy into effect. I hope for that reason the Committee will grant this Vote and I am sure that the agricultural community will take the advance in the spirit in which it is offered.

4.56 p.m.

Captain HEILGERS: It is satisfactory that the Minister has got this agreement with the Dominions. The only thing in it about which I am anxious is the question of the carry-over which we were told of, with regard to the third quarter and whether, if it is very large, it will not prejudice the Christmas market considerably. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) is not in his place as I wish to make some reference to what he has said. He spoke a great deal about employment. I would point out that beef does not provide much employment. A factor which has to be realised is that the beef industry is one of the smallest employers in agriculture. He also made a great point as to the 56,000 men who had left the land. I agree that it is very regrettable but one point which the hon.
Member omitted to make was that the fall in the number of agriculture workers was more rapid when the Labour Government were in office than it has been under this Government.
I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) that we want a straight tariff as regards beef, but I emphatically disagree with the other point which he made, namely that we do not want any marketing scheme. I wish he could have been in my district last Saturday when 8,000 of the agricultural population were gathered together and he would have found that the farmers were alarmed to the last degree about the milk pool and the possibility of the milk scheme being revoked. There is another point to which the Minister referred and which has not been mentioned since and that is to the question of the store men. I am very glad that my right hon. Friend made that reference. Nothing has been more discouraging to agriculture in many places where there are marshes and a good grazing land than the lack of demand for beef and the small price obtainable for it. That difficulty has been aggravated as far as the store man is concerned because at the present moment there is not the same opening in the milk trade for raising mulch heifers as there used to be. We must realise that this sum represents compensation in respect of cheap food for the towns. We must realise that the agriculturist is entitled to that compensation and I hope that in all the negotiations with the Dominion and the Argentine my right hon. Friend will never cease to impress upon them that although the very life of some of the Dominions may depend on their beef and mutton production, yet as regards agriculture in this country, we must put the home producer first, the Dominions second and the foreigner third.

5.0 p.m.

Captain ARCHIBALD RAMSAY: I would like, while thanking my right hon. Friend for bringing this order forward, to mention one point which so far has escaped the attention of the Committee, but which only a couple of years ago caused considerable comment in the Agricultural Committee upstairs. I refer to the practice of the substitution of chilled and frozen meat in butchers' shops for the home-killed article. This
practice, which has again, and frequently, been brought to my notice, seems to be fairly general, and it is one that concerns, I think, most Members in this House if any of the reports which come to me are anywhere near true. I consulted the Secretary of State for Scotland not long ago on this subject, and he asked me if I would make certain fresh inquiries from people whom I thought would give reliable information. I did so, and the reports which I could show my right hon. Friend and which come from people whose statements are above suspicion go to prove that there is in fact a widespread practice in butchers' shops all over the country of keeping in the back of the shop large quantities of chilled and frozen meat which they palm off on the public while still observing the labelling and marking law as regards the front counters of the shop. The inquiries I have made relate to three counties in Scotland and also Edinburgh.
I am fully aware that as the law stands if it can be proved that a man is selling fraudulently in this way he can be pursued at law, but my point is that as the law stands it is practically impossible to bring it home to a man who is committing such an offence. It is impossible, unless you have a large army of inspectors to stand about and spy on their neighbours, to prove that at a given moment a man does not bring meat in the back of the shop and sell it as home-killed meat. If this practice is at all general, it is sufficient to affect the market for home-killed beef. It is very much cheaper to supply your customers even in part with meat that is not fresh killed, especially if also it is put into all kinds of pies and sausages. May I ask my right hon. Friend, first, if he has made any inquiries recently as to the extent to which this practice is going on, and, if he has not done so, whether he will do so, because I believe it is worth the effort; and, secondly, if the result of these inquiries should prove that the information which I am supplying is correct, that this practice is widespread and is having a definite and harmful effect on the home beef market, will he consider introducing some form of compulsion, either to compel a man to put a notice in his window to the effect that he sells home-killed meat only or a notice that he sells foreign meat, because
that would enable the offence to be detected when the meat enters the shop? I hope that my right hon. Friend will either make some statement or promise to look further into the matter.

5.6 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: A short time ago I was of opinion that it was a pity to continue this subsidy and that it would have been much more advisable to introduce a permanent scheme; but since I have attended the conference of Parliamentary delegates from other Dominions which has taken place in this House and have realised the difficulties which the Minister of Agriculture has in coming to agreement with them as to the importation of foreign meat, at the same time coming to a voluntary agreement with Argentina to limit its supply, I am entirely of opinion that the course which he is pursuing of continuing the subsidy for a period is the only possible course. It is amazing to think that in this country and the Dominions it was not realised that Australia would presently compete in the chilled beef market. Surely future historians will consider that this is one of the most remarkable cases of lack of foresight by some machinery of Government. I am not blaming the British Government or our Parliamentary institutions, but I think it is time that there was some other means of communication than the present intercourse which takes place only on occasions like Ottawa or the celebrations this year. Surely somebody in the scientific world should be able to warn us that it would be possible to bring chilled beef through the Red Sea in a short space of time. Surely it was possible for those who produce beef in Australia to have warned us. I hope that the Government will be able to take this matter into consideration for future occasions.
Then there are the changes that have taken place in the habits of the people. Undoubtedly in a hot weather spell such as the present people do not eat so much beef. They are more likely to change over to poultry or mutton. I should like to give an experience which I had at a dinner held in Lincolnshire in support of the continuance of the beef subsidy. There were 150 men there, more or less in the prime of life, interested in the beef trade because they produce beef. But on an analysis of the number of
people who took mutton in that assembly it was found that 100 ate mutton and 50 beef. Twenty or thirty years ago it would certainly have been the other way round, and probably 80 per cent. of the people would have had beef. In the same way I do not think that it could have been altogether foreseen when the Ottawa Agreements were made what would be the development of hiking and the open air life in this country, which again militate against the consumption of beef. For these reasons, realising how the country is changing over, I am supporting the Minister in this matter. I would like to say, on behalf of the producers in my constituency, that the sooner they can get a permanent scheme the better for them, because, while the subsidy has been of great use in maintaining prices compared with last year, it has not that appearance of continuity which all agriculturists desire for the conduct of their business. I should like to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture in having gone bravely forward in spite of all criticism.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. HASLAM: I suppose that the underlying principle of this Debate, as indeed of many of our agricultural Debates for the last few months, has been as to whether British agriculture is worth preserving or not. I do not think that there is any hon. Member who would say that it would be other than a disaster if agriculture were left entirely to free competition from outside sources. We should have large areas of this country, not only the Eastern Counties but many other parts, which would go entirely out of cultivation. We should see villages emptied and schools and churches closed, and indeed that has happened in Lincolnshire already in certain districts where it has not been found possible to carry on cultivation. In these circumstances, I do not think that any agricultural Member need make any apology in asking for a subsidy. Those in Lincolnshire whom I represent, who are cultivating the land at this moment and whose forebears cultivated the land for generations before them, who have rescued from the sea large portions of valuable agricultural land, would not be able to understand anybody who put to them such a proposition as that their occupation was of no value to this country.
They know that the great European countries, as well as countries all over the world, value their agriculture. This subsidy is necessary because the beef industry has fallen into such low water that it must be preserved during this time of world economic crisis and low prices.
My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) made a mistake when he said that the wholesale price of mutton had risen only by about 1½d. per lb. I took down the Minister's remarks, and it has risen from 1932, when it was somewhere about 7½d. or 7¼d. to 10½d. in 1935, a very sensible rise. I think the Minister is fully justified in claiming for his policy of restriction, worked in conjunction with Australia and New Zealand, credit for getting that additional price for the home producer. It is, of course, difficult to say from what source that particular rise has come and who has paid it. No doubt hon. Members opposite believe that if they had Socialism and crowds of officials it might effect a similar reduction. On the other hand, it might have an opposite effect. The Minister is fully justified in claiming credit, and I think the Committee will give him credit, for having achieved this result in the case of mutton and lamb. The hon. Member for Don Valley stated that he was against this levy, because it would fall on the consumers of the cheaper qualities of meat introduced into this country. It is a fact, however, that we have now had a tariff in this country for over three years, and it has been found again and again that the tariff has not been paid by the consumer but has been paid by the foreign producer. In the case of meat, where we know that such enormous quantities are being produced, I suggest that there is every prospect that a small levy could be paid entirely by the producer, or very nearly so. I welcome this levy, for I was one of those who, when the Import Duties Act was being discussed in 1932, moved an Amendment—

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Commander Cochrane): I hope that the hon. Member will remember that this Resolution refers only to the cattle industry.

Mr. HASLAM: I hoped that I would be able to point out that, having supported the principle of a tariff on cattle, I was
pleased that the Government had come round to the principle of a levy, because, after all, there is not a great difference between a levy and a tariff. The results of a levy benefit the farmer, whereas the proceeds of a tariff go to the Exchequer. I thoroughly support a levy in the case under consideration because it assists the home producers. They have had an extremely difficult time. In Lincolnshire wages have been almost kept up to the 1930 level and the losses have fallen mainly on those engaged in farming, and very severe losses they have been. I support this proposal because if this country does not support an agricultural population on the land and allows the land to go derelict, it will be a very serious thing. I find it difficult to understand why, as hon. Members opposite say they prefer a subsidy to a levy, they should walk into the Lobby against the subsidy instead of supporting it.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. YOUNG: I am against the principle of the levy because it means higher prices—

Mr. ELLIOT: I ought to point out that there is no question of a levy in this Resolution.

Mr. YOUNG: The Resolution says:
to provide for extending … the period during which cattle or carcases of cattle must have been sold in order that payments in respect thereof may be made out of the Cattle Fund.
Is it misusing the term to call it a "levy"?

Mr. ELLIOT: Absolutely misusing it.

Mr. YOUNG: May I ask why?

Mr. ELLIOT: Because no levy is being charged, and therefore no payments are being made on account of it.

Mr. YOUNG: I assumed that this was a continuation of the Debate that took place previously. The hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Haslam) has been arguing in favour of the good effects of this particular levy.

Mr. ELLIOT: It is a little unfortunate if we are to have a debate on a misapprehension. Let me repeat that there is no question whatever of any levy of any kind or description being charged under this Resolution.

Mr. YOUNG: In those circumstances, I will not continue.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. PALING: Since I have been back to the House I have never heard Members beg so unashamedly for public money as the agriculturists have done. When I first came to the House we Socialists used always to be met with the cry from our opponents, "Hands off industry." They said, "Let the Government leave industry alone, and we shall be all right; leave it to private enterprise, which can carry all these things out excellently and can manage better without the Government." That was the general trend of the argument, but it has changed entirely now. Agriculturists in particular, and others to some extent, do not now say "Hands off industry." They say, "How can you help industry?" and they beg for public money, because, I suppose, private enterprise has failed. In some cases when public money has been handed out, the Government have insisted on some kind of control, but we are getting past that stage now. The right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) indicated the line which agriculturists were going to take in future when he said that he hoped when the Government gave anything to agriculture in future they would not compel the industry to do anything. In other words, the Government should give money to the industry and let the industry do what it likes. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture seems to be of the same mind. I see in to-day's "Times" that he made a speech in which, referring to tariffs and subsidies he said:
Why not use the fund, not only for handing out direct assistance for financing improvements in marketing technique"—

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will appreciate that this fund, whatever it may be, is not the subject of the discussion.

Mr. PALING: I am not going to discuss it; I am only making a reference to it in order to point out that the Parliamentary Secretary agrees with the right hon. Member for South Molton that there should be subsidies without control and that, if the industry is to be improved in technique, the farmer should not even have to pay for it, but that it
should come out of a subsidy or tariff. I am surprised that Members should come here time after time just begging for public money in the way that they have done within die last 18 months. It reminds me of a, statement a few weeks ago by the "Minister for Thought," which, I think, is what we now call the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy). When we were discussing the question of getting some money for the unemployed and for those in the distressed areas, the noble Lord got up in his corner seat and said that this kind of thing was patronage of the worst kind and that we were getting votes by promising public money to the unemployed. I do not know whether that can be called patronage or not but if it is, the begging of hon. Members for assistance to industry is even worse patronage. Members representing agriculture do not beg public money for the unemployed, but beg it for themselves and use their power in this House—

Mr. HASLAM: No agricultural Member has ever begged money for himself.

Mr. PALING: Many Members who take part in agricultural Debates are agriculturists themselves, and they benefit by these subsidies. In that way they are getting money for themselves. It is not a thing of which to be very proud, and I have been ashamed of the development of this begging business since I came back to the House 18 months ago. If there is one lesson to be learned from all these subsidies, tariffs, quotas, prohibitions and the giving of public money, it is that private enterprise has demonstrated that it has failed and that it cannot carry on without public assistance. If the Government will not, when they give public assistance to industry, take control at the same time, I hope the public will insist at the next election that where public money is given there should be public control and ownership as well.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I think the Minister ought to say a word in reply to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling). I share the views of the hon. Member because I think the question of subsidies is becoming ghastly. The Minister's record on this subject has become almost shocking. After all, why is a subsidy granted? It is granted because the
people who are running an industry are so hard up that they cannot run it without State assistance. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he has in his division people who are much harder up than the people whom he is subsidising. They have been steeped in poverty for years. We see public money being handed over to people in industry without any test at all, while the poorest people are put under all sorts of mean and contemptible tests. When it is a case of assisting the rich people and farmers, there are no tests, and an hon. Member even says: "We do not beg for ourselves." They come here and get money so that they can go back to their divisions and say: "We have succeeded in wringing millions of pounds for a subsidy from the Government. Vote for us, because, if you do not, these millions will not be given by another Government."

Mr. HASLAM: Such subsidies as have been granted have only enabled the farmers to gain a bare living.

Mr. BUCHANAN: It is patronage, nevertheless; and, contrary to the help given to the unemployed, it is help given without any kind of test. There are no conditions. I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Member who said that a lot of Government interference with the farmers would be simply waste. Once we have decided on the subsidy we might as well hand out the money to them and let them do what they like. I shall not refer to the other subsidies under which millions have been handed out. We are constantly told that the nation is not yet "out of the wood", that financially the country is still in a difficult position. On a previous occasion the Minister of Agriculture sneered at me by saying that I favoured some kind of help for engineering. I do not know where he got that information. As he knows, I was one of the few who opposed the Cunarder subsidy, practically standing alone on that occasion, although that vessel was being built on the Clyde. I have never asked for a subsidy, and I defy him to prove either from the OFFICIAL REPORT or from the Division Lists, that I have ever asked for a, subsidy for engineering, although I happen to follow the engineering trade. It is a disgraceful thing that money is being handed out in this way while other and more deserving people, some of
whom the right hon. Gentleman represents, are needing it much more.
I listened to an hon. Member describing the conditions of the farmers in Lincolnshire, how they find it hard to keep their heads up and their businesses afloat. In my division there are decent men, as good as the farmers maintaining their children on an allowance of 2s. a child. There is no farmer in Britain living on that standard. Not a farmer in this country has to keep his children on 2s. a week. No farmer is asked to keep himself, his wife, and a child on 28s. a week. But that is the standard in Kelvingrove, which the right hon. Gentleman represents. Instead of demanding money for them he is handing it over to other people who are far less deserving. I make no apology for saying that I put the Gorbals division before any Labour party or any other party. Here is a man of great ability and capacity, there are few abler men in this House, coming down to ask for this subsidy while his own division is steeped in poverty such as no farming community can equal. It is not a case of men being out of work for one year or two years, some of them have been out of work for 8, 9 or 10 years. There are men of 65 living on a miserable pension of 10s. a week, and we get the Chancellor telling them how little this country can afford it; yet we find millions for this subsidy. Millions for a millionaire's ship, millions for beef, millions for beet—

Mr. HASLAM: And for shipping.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Yes, but the whole lot is wrong, basically wrong. I look upon this procedure with a great deal of feeling. If you come here representing vested interests you can beg unashamedly and get the money, but you must not come here and beg for those living in poverty. I think the children of the poor in the City of Glasgow are as good as the farmers, as much entitled to as good a standard of life, and some of these millions ought to be poured out in giving the decent poor a decent home to live in and decent conditions of life.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. ELLIOT: Of course, we all know what the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) is doing. He is delivering an attack which will come in very useful for him in the Kelvingrove Division of Glasgow at the next Election, and that is
all, and he knows it, because he said as much to me. I do not blame him. It is quite right for him to do his utmost to rouse prejudice, to rouse bitterness, to rouse passion, to misrepresent—well, I will not say to misrepresent, but to put his own case so very strongly that he does not need to mention anybody else's. He is a man of Parliamentary ability unsurpassed by anybody else in this House. He can put a case so vehemently that he convinces those who are listening. He can convince his own side and goes far to shake those of us who are on the other side. But let there be no mistake about what this proposal is. This is a proposal to maintain the wages of the poorest people in the land. I will tell him another thing. The sugar-beet subsidy is coming on this afternoon, and we shall have no hesitation in meeting him on that issue also. When the first Labour Government were in power it was not possible to get wages of 31s. for agriculturists as they are to-day, they were at 24s. or 25s. The Wages Board was brought into existence to deal with that situation. [Interruption.] The question I am discussing is whether this is a subsidy for the rich or for the poor. This is a subsidy for the poorest of the poor. Let there be no mistake about this being a subsidy for the wealthy farmer—for the farmers with motor cars of whom we have been told. The question is whether basic agricultural wages can be maintained even at the low levels they are at to-day or whether they should go back to the scandalously low levels which were formerly paid. Will the hon. Member stand up in either my constituency or any other—

Mr. BUCHANAN: Yes, yours tomorrow.

Mr. ELLIOT: Let the hon. Member wait to hear the question.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I will face you anywhere.

Mr. ELLIOT: The hon. Member has not yet heard the question I am putting to him. I am asking him whether he will stand up in a constituency and defend low wages paid in agricultural divisions?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Ah!

Mr. ELLIOT: Ah, he is not going to defend that. I will take him further. He that wills the end wills the means.
If he wants higher wages he has got to vote for Measures which will enable higher wages to be paid. He made the suggestion that this is a Measure of patronage, that patronage was being used here because we were making an effort to hold price levels, and therefore wages which depend on those price levels. He said that he challenged the Minister to suggest any occasion on which he, the Member for Gorbals, had ever supported anything which would support the price level and, therefore, support the wages level. Very well, let him go through the Divisions on the coal quota. Let him go through the Divisions by which he and his friends raised the price of coal above what it otherwise would have been to the poorest of the poor.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I am quite willing to go through the Division Lists.

Mr. ELLIOT: What about the fireplaces in Glasgow? Did not he and his hon. Friends support Measures which would have the effect of holding the price levels of coal, even though it meant a higher price for coal for domestic fuel, which is as much a necessity as food? Let there be no nonsense on this matter. We are at this moment defending a Measure to sustain the price level by a subsidy and not by a levy, by a subsidy and not by a quota, by a subsidy and not by a tariff. Hon. and right hon. Mem-

bers opposite have said that at any rate they prefer this to any other method of assistance which could possibly be given. They are going to vote against it, because to do so will come in useful, but they prefer it to anything else, and really are voting against it because what they are after is the long-term policy which may be introduced 15 months or a year hence when negotiations come to an end. They have a policy but the hon. Member falls back on invective. He says, I do not blame him, "Here is a chance for a very effective Parliamentary speech. Here is a chance"—and I do not blame him—"for saying that money is being lavished on the rich and not on the poor. Here is a chance"—and I do not blame him—"for saying, 'We never did anything like that.'" Here is a chance to wrap himself in the white sheet of his blameless life. He cannot do that. It is all covered with coal dust. There have been a few questions asked in this Debate to which I shall reply on later stages of the Bill. There has been no real criticism of either the purpose of this proposal, which is to maintain the agricultural industry, or of the machinery, which is to do it by means of a subsidy, and I ask the Committee with the utmost confidence to give us this Resolution.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 42.

Division No. 271.]
AYES.
[5.40 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Duckworth, George A. V.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Carver, Major William H.
Eastwood, John Francis


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Castlereagh, Viscount
Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony


Albery, Irving James
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Ellis, Sir R. Geottrey


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Elmley, Viscount


Aske, Sir Robert William
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Assheton, Ralph
Clarke, Frank
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard


Atholl, Duchess of
Clarry, Reginald George
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Clayton, Sir Christopher
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Everard, W. Lindsay


Balniel, Lord
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Conant, R. J. E.
Fleming, Edward Lascelles


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Cooper, A. Duff
Fraser, Captain Sir Ian


Bernays, Robert
Cooper, T. M. (Edinburgh, W.)
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace


Blindell, JamesCopeland, Ida
Ganzoni, Sir John


Bossom, A. C.
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Glossop, C. W. H.


Boulton, W. W.
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Glucksteln, Louis Halle


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Crooke, J. Smedley
Goff, Sir Park


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Goldie, Noel B.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Gower, Sir Robert


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Cross, R. H.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Broadbent, Colonel John
Crossley, A. C.
Grimston, R. V.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Dalkelth, Earl of
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Brown, Rt. Hon. Ernest (Leith)
Dickie, John P.
Hales, Harold K.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Hammersley, Samuel S.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Donner, P. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Burnett, John George
Doran, Edward
Hartington, Marquess of


Butler, Richard Austen
Drewe, Cedric
Hartland, George A.


Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)
Maltland, Adam
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Salt, Edward W.


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Martin, Thomas B.
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Savery, Servington


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Meller, Sir Richard James (Mitcham)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Mitcheson, G. G.
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Moreing, Adrian C.
Somervell, Sir Donald


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Morgan, Robert H.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Norle-Miller, Francis
Strauss, Edward A.


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
North, Edward T.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Jamieson, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Nunn, William
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Ker, J. Campbell
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hn. William G. A.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univ.)
Patrick, Colin M.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Peat, Charles U.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Penny, Sir George
Thompson, Sir Luke


Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Percy, Lord Eustace
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Petherick, M.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Levy, Thomas
Pike, Cecil F.Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Lewis, Oswald
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Liddall, Walter S.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Pybus, Sir John
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermilne)


Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Watt, Major George Steven H.


Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. Sir Charles
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


MacAndrew, Major J. O. (Ayr)
Remer, John R.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


McConnell, Sir Joseph
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir. Arnold (Hertf'd)


McCorquodale, M. S.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Withers, Sir John James


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Ross, Ronald D.
Womersley, Sir Walter


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Bassetlaw)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward
Worthington, Sir John


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter



McLean, Major Sir Alan
Runge, Norah Cecil
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Major George Davies and Lieut.-


Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Colonel Llewellin.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Parkinson, John Allen


Attlee, Rt. Hon. Clement R.
Groves, Thomas E.
Pickering, Ernest H.


Banfield, John William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Rea, Sir Walter


Buchanan, George
Harris, Sir Percy
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jenkins, Sir William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cove, William G.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Thorne, William James


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Curry, A. C.
Lunn, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Daggar, George
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Wilmot, John

Edwards, Sir Charles
McGovern, John
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James
Mr. John and Mr. Paling.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE AND CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.

As amended, considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Amendment of s. 3 of Insurance Act with respect to free insurance period and extended insurance period.)

5.51 p.m.

Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: I beg to move, in page 3, line 4, after "years," to insert:
or, if his normal occupation is one of the employments specified in paragraph (g) of Part I of the First Schedule to the Insurance Act, he has been engaged in that occupation for a continuous period of at least ten years and has been an insured person since 1929.'
I am grateful to the Government for introducing this Measure, and I have put down this Amendment with considerable hesitation. I considered it very carefully and have had advice as to the effect it would have, and I feel it my duty to ask the House to consider the point. Clause 1, Sub-section (3) provides for practically an indefinite prolongation of pensions and insurance for insured persons who can show that they have been insured for a continuous period of 10 years. My point affects a class of people who are very often found in an odd position in relation to the general classes of workers. Share fishermen cannot take advantage of the provision, because they cannot prove continuous insurance for 10 years, as they were only brought into the schemes of insurance in 1929. Hon. Members do not require to be told that the share fisherman has been going through a very difficult period in recent years, and I am rather afraid of the future in regard to employment for him. I cannot predict what the next few years may bring to him, but it is right that if anything can be done to safeguard his position it ought to be done. The provision which I would ask the Government to make is embodied in the Amendment, which provides that where a share fisherman can show that he has been continuously employed as a share fisherman for 10 years in such conditions that, had the law been as it is to-day, he would have been insured, and if he came into insurance as soon as the
law permitted him to do so, he ought to get full advantage of the provisions which the Government are making to deal with the vexed question of unemployment.
It has been put forward that provision is made under which the share fisherman can take advantage of the Bill in other respects. It is said that he can have an extended period of insurance, but the conditions under which this extended year of insurance are given are very difficult for the share fisherman to comply with, because he must have had four years of insurance and 160 contributions in that time. This is a very technical matter, and very difficult to argue out on the Floor of the House. I put the position to an insurance society with which I am connected, the Scottish Fishermen's Approved Society, and the reply which I received from them was:
None of our members had up to 31st December, 1934, qualified for the extended year's insurance and out of 131 members whose ordinary free period of insurance is due to terminate on 30th June, unless they surrender a stamped card for the first period of 1935, only five have the necessary qualifications for the extended year, namely, four years' insurance and payment of at least 160 contributions.
That shows that these share fishermen are in a very difficult position, and it is very difficult to see how they are to get the benefit which the Government intend they should get out of the Bill. The future is obscure for them. I hope the Minister will look upon this proposal sympathetically. It is clear, and it will not in any way upset the machinery which he is providing for insurance in general.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I beg to second the Amendment. I do not propose to take up the time of the House, because the case has been very clearly put by my hon. Friend.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I am in sympathy with the objects of the Mover of the Amendment, and I hope the Minister will look kindly upon it. I rise to ask a question to which I hope he will reply. Am I not right in saying that there are other classes, such as slaughtermen, who will fall into the same category as share fishermen? I ask the Government to give to the slaughtermen, if that be the case, whatever they give to the share fishermen.

5.59 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): Not for the first time my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Sir M. McKenzie Wood) has urged the claims of the share fishermen. I would not for one moment attempt to minimise the difficulty of the times through which they are passing, but it is impassible for the Government to create under this Bill a special class who are to get a special benefit which is not available for other classes of beneficiaries.

Sir M. McKENZIE WOOD: They are exceptional.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Every share fisherman, irrespective of his contribution, will get his 21-months' free insurance period, and, during that period, he has to do eight weeks' work, or eight days in eight weeks, in order to qualify for another free insurance period. I imagine that the great majority, by finding this eight weeks' work, will be able to extend or renew their free insurance period from year to year. If they do not, my hon. Friend will realise that the scheme would be keeping in benefit for ever persons at the back of whom there are very few contributions, and with regard to whom there may be some doubt as to whether they are seeking their livelihood in this occupation at all. Many of these men, when they are not fishing, become crofters—

Sir M. McKENZIE WOOD: indicated dissent.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My information is that quite a number of them—in fact, a large proportion—do a little seasonal work on the land, and one of the conditions of getting this extended year is that, except for 12 weeks in the 21 months, the person is genuinely employed, so that under these conditions a number of them will not qualify for the extended year. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) raised a point which is very pertinent, namely, that, if this special class is to be created, there are other classes which came in subsequently, such as slaughtermen, and also persons who are called manual labour contractors. How would it be possible to differentiate between the share fisherman who came in in 1929 and the boy who was 16 in 1929 and had to wait for
10 years in order to qualify for the extended year?

Sir M. McKENZIE WOOD: May I point out that the boy of 16 is in exactly the same position as the share fisherman of 16? I am not asking that any distinction should be drawn between these two classes.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: But my hon. Friend is asking that such a distinction should be drawn. What he says is that, after five years' insurance, these share fishermen shall have the right that is extended to all other persons after 10 years.

Sir M. McKENZIE WOOD: No.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My hon. Friend must listen. I listened to him without interruption, and perhaps he will listen to my point. I do not say that I shall convince him; I am not so optimistic; but I am making my case, and am giving rasons which I hope he will appreciate. It is true that there is a, certain period, which we say is a reasonable one, for which everyone must qualify in order to gain the very generous benefit that for the rest of his life, subject to proof of continued unemployment, he will be kept, in medical benefit and insured for pension purposes. We say that any unemployed man who gets these benefits must have had a reasonable period of insurance, and we say that that period is 10 years. My hon. Friend, owing to his regard for the share fishermen, really wants to give them, after five years, an insurance privilege which is extended to others after 10 years. If that were done, it would open the door very wide, and I very much doubt whether we could maintain the position and treat 99½ per cent. of the beneficiaries in one way and this small proportion in another way. What will happen will be that in three or four years' time these share fishermen who have been kept in insurance will then qualify by satisfying the 10-years condition, and, like everyone else, subject to proof that they are genuinely unemployed, will get the benefit of the Act.

6.6 p.m.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I hope the Government will consider this point again. I venture to think, if I may say so without offence, that the Parliamentary Secretary on this occasion has spoken with imperfect knowledge of the
conditions of the class of people for whom my hon. Friend has been pleading. For example, he said that most of them are crofters, but I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary that only an insignificant number of these share fishermen are crofters. I am sure that, if the Parliamentary Secretary would ask any representative of the Scottish Fishery Board about that, he would confirm my statement that the large majority of these share fishermen are men living in the fishing towns, like Peterhead, Fraser-burgh, Wick and other places round the Scottish coast, who have no land at all, and are not in any sense of the word crofters. With all respect to the Parliamentary Secretary, I venture to tell him that he has based his argument upon a false point, and I would ask him to get what I have said confirmed or corrected by consultation with the Scottish Fishery Board, who know the circumstances of these men and whose arbitration I should be prepared willingly to accept.
Then the Parliamentary Secretary said that, if the Amendment were passed, it would make a special class of these men; but the converse is the truth. If we pass the Bill in its present form, without this Amendment, the share fishermen of England, Scotland and Wales will be made into a special class who will not be able to enjoy the effect of this Bill for one reason, and one reason only, and that is that Parliament did not deal with their case until 1929. All the other industries in the country got the benefits of the insurance scheme much more than 10 years ago, but the share fishermen of this country only got the benefits of the scheme in 1929. That was not their fault, and it was not their responsibility; it was the responsibility and the fault of Parliament; and it would be most unfair for Parliament to continue to penalise these men by preventing them from getting the benefits of this Bill because Parliament did not so widen the scheme as to bring them in until 1929. The Parliamentary Secretary also tried to draw an analogy between boys of 16 and share fishermen, but that analogy will not hold water. The Amendment would not say that share

fishermen would get their insurance at the end of five years, but only that they should be eligible for insurance as though the scheme had extended for five years before 1929. As the Parliamentary Secretary himself has said, at the end of 10 years from 1929 the share fishermen will be on exactly the same terms as every other industry, and all that we ask is that for the next four years they should not be penalised owing to the fact that the legislation extending the unemployment insurance scheme to them was not passed by Parliament until 1929.

The Amendment says, too, not that the share fishermen are to get benefits if they have been in insurance for five years, but only if they have been in that occupation for a continuous period of at least 10 years. Boys of 16 cannot say that, so that that is another false point on which the Parliamentary Secretary has based his case. I have now pointed out two false points on which he has based his case, and really there is no foundation for it at all. Therefore, I would ask the Minister of Health and the Government to take this matter into consideration again. If they would give us the assurance that they will consider the matter again between now and the time when the Bill goes to another place, I am sure my hon. Friend would not wish to press the Amendment. As he has said, we want the Bill, and we applaud the Government for introducing it. We do not in the least want to embarrass the Government, or to trip them up, or to score points against them. If they would assure us that this matter will be considered in another place, now that their arguments have been explained to the House of Commons and it has been possible for me to show that they are absolutely without foundation, I am sure my hon. Friend would not wish to divide the House on this occasion; but, if the Government cannot see their way to do that, I hope my hon. Friend will press the Amendment to a Division.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 53; Noes, 231.

Division No. 272.]
AYES.
[6.12 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Buchanan, George
Daggar, George


Attlee, Rt. Hon. Clement R.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Banfield, John William
Cove, William G.
Edwards, Sir Charles


Batey, Joseph
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Lawson, John James
Rothschild, James A. de


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Leonard, William
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lunn, William
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McGovern, John
Thorne, William James


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Tinker, John Joseph


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Groves, Thomas E.
Maxton, James
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Wilmot, John


Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Paling, Wilfred
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Harris, Sir Percy
Parkinson, John Allen


Jenkins, Sir William
Pickering, Ernest H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


John, William
Rea, Sir Walter
Sir Murdoch McKenzie Wood and


Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Sir Robert Hamilton.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Everard, W. Lindsay
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander


Albery, Irving James
Fox, Sir Gilford
Maltland, Adam


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Ganzoni, Sir John
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Assheton, Ralph
Glossop, C. W. H.
Martin, Thomas B.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Goldie, Noel B.
Meller, Sir Richard James (Mitcham)


Balniel, Lord
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)
Grimston, R. V.
Mitcheson, G. G.


Bossom, A. C.
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Boulton, W. W.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Moreing, Adrian C.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hales, Harold K.
Morgan, Robert H.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Hanbury, Sir Cecil
Morrison, William Shepherd

Brass, Captain Sir William
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Nunn, William


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. Ernest (Leith)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Patrick, Colin M.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Penny, Sir George


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Percy, Lord Eustace


Burnett, John George
Hopkinson, Austin
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. Leslie
Petherick, M.


Carver, Major William H.
Horobin, Ian M.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Pike, Cecil F.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Potter, John


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Clarke, Frank
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Pybus, Sir John


Clarry, Reginald George
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Jamieson, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Conant, R. J. E.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Cooper, A. Duff
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Cooper, T. M. (Edinburgh, W.)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Remer, John R.


Copeland, Ida
Ker, J. Campbell
Rickards, George William


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univ.)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Crooke, J. Smedley
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quintal
Ross, Ronald D.


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Cross, R. H.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Crossley, A. C.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Levy, Thomas
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lewis, Oswald
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Liddall, Walter S.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Dickie, John P.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Doran, Edward
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Duckworth, George A. V.
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Duggan, Hubert John
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).


Eastwood, John Francis
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. Sir Charles
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
MacAndrew, Major J. O. (Ayr)
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)


Elmley, Viscount
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Emrys, Evans, P. V.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Somervell, Sir Donald


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Bassetlaw)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.




Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
White, Henry Graham


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Storey, Samuel
Tree, Ronald
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Straws, Edward A.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Strickland, Captain W. F.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Turton, Robert Hugh
Withers, Sir John James


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Womersley, Sir Walter


Tate, Mavis Constance
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)



Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Thorp, Linton Theodora
Watt, Major George Steven H.
Major George Davies and Lieut.-




Colonel Llewellin.


Bill read the Third time, and passed.

6.22 p.m.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I beg to move, in page 3, line 32, after "sickness," to insert "or."
On the last occasion that we discussed this Bill I gave an undertaking to examine the possibility of providing maternity benefit to insured persons during their extended insurance period. It was a desire that was expressed in all parts of the Committee and one which, I think, must command everyone's sympathy, not least my own. The matter has not been without difficulty, as hon. Members opposite will appreciate more than anyone else. I am sure the House will appreciate my desire not to place a further charge on the funds of the approved societies, who have already so willingly undertaken to bear their share of the considerable cost of the benefits made available under the Bill. Another matter was that it was, and is, difficult to forecast with any precise accuracy the cost of this proposal, as it depends on so many uncertain factors, including the number of persons who would pass into the extended insurance period and the birth rate prevailing among such persons. We have made a close investigation into the finance of the health insurance scheme with all these matters in mind, and, particularly, modifications have been introduced into the Bill in connection with the setting up of the Unemployment Insurance Arrears Fund. As the result, we have found a source from which the additional cost can be met, namely, the balance of the unclaimed stamps money, which is not, under the Act, required to be paid to the central fund. Therefore, I am able to meet the wishes of the House in this respect, and at the same time not cast any further burden upon the funds of the approved societies. In this way I am very glad to be able to secure to insured persons in the extended period not only medical benefit and additional treatment benefits, but maternity benefit as well.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I should be a very ungrateful person if I did not say on behalf of Members of all parties how delighted we are that the right hon. Gentleman has found a nest-egg from which to meet this expenditure. I hope, however, that he will not feel himself so elated as to put this also on the hoardings, because he knows well that there was pressure by Members of all parties, and that he gave way on the point. At any rate, I am pleased that the cost is not coming out of the funds of the societies, because that would only mean a decline in the surplus on valuation. I have an impression that, if he remained at his post for very long, we might get the scheme back once again to the financial position that prevailed before money was taken out of it. We are grateful for the concession.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: This concession shows the difference between the present Minister of Health and many past Ministers. I suggest that the others would not have been so ready to move, because they are not the keen students of public opinion that I think he is. I shall not blame him if he puts it on the hoardings. Governments yield to pressure, and it does not matter who puts the pressure on. I do not think, however, that the concession is as large as some may think. It comes only after 10 years, and that means that it is only to persons who are less likely to be at the age of giving birth to children. The great mass who will benefit by it are the group below the 10 years period—the newly married couples or those who have not had 10 years in insurance. While giving very little, the right hon. Gentleman gets all the kudos of making a very elaborate concession. In so far as it means a concession I accept it, but the thing that I welcome is the acceptance of the principle that maternity benefit is as important as old age or any other benefit within
the four corners of national health insurance.

6.29 p.m.

Sir LUKE THOMPSON: I should like to say one word of commendation as one of those who spoke on this point in Committee and urged the Minister to reconsider his decision. It is with very great satisfaction that we learn that he has conceded the point. I hope, whether it appears on the hoardings or not, no party will seek to make capital out of the concession. It is a thing that will give very great satisfaction in the industrial areas. It is an important addition, and we welcome the concession very much.

6.30 p.m.

Sir SAMUEL CHAPMAN: As a Scottish Member who asked the Minister to reconsider this question, I wish to join with other hon. Members in offering him our gratitude as far as Scotland is concerned. I think he has really done better than he knows, because we had a very serious report on this question from the medical officer of health in Edinburgh on the very day of the discussion. At any rate, my right hon. Friend has done the right thing, and done it quickly. It shows that he is going to occupy as prominent and as successful a position in his new office as he did in his old.

6.31 p.m.

Miss WARD: As one of the Members who asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider making this concession, I wish to add my thanks to him for having acceded to our request. I take this concession as an earnest of the very real intention of the Government to deal with the maternal mortality problem. It is obvious that my right hon. Friend has in mind the complexities of this problem, and that every opportunity will be given in all ways to try to deal with the very serious difficulties which arise in connection with it. I have found, on going round the various Government Departments, that there is a great deal of work done behind the scenes, which is not put on the hoardings and about which my right hon. Friend does not tell the House. I know from remarks which I have heard in the big industrial centres that soy right hon. Friend is carrying out a series of inquiries, and I am certain that the Government will have a policy to lay before the country dealing with this
very serious problem. I regard this concession as an earnest to the country that the Government intend to deal with the question, and I cordially offer my right hon. Friend my very grateful thanks. I know that the country will warmly applaud the fact that he has acceded to the request which has been made to him from all parties.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 33, leave out "or maternity".—[Sir K. Wood.]

Four consequential Amendments made.

Further Amendments made: In page 5, line 18, after "period," insert "and becomes disentitled to sickness and disablement benefit."

In line 20, leave out from "he," to "or," in line 21, and insert "ceases to be so disentitled."

In line 24, at the end, insert:
(3) In Sub-section (2) of Section sixty-eight of the Insurance Act for the words 'and as to the residue thereof shall be applied in such manner as may be prescribed' there shall be substituted the words and as to the residue thereof shall be applied in the repayment to approved societies of so much of the sums expended by them in paying maternity benefit in respect of the insurance of persons for the time being disentitled under Sub-section (4) of Section three of this Act to sickness and disablement benefit as is not defrayed, in pursuance of Section four of this Act, out of moneys provided by Parliament, and, so far as not so applied, shall be applied in such manner as may be prescribed.
In this Sub-section the expression "maternity benefit" does not include any increase of maternity benefit by way of additional benefit.'".—[Sir K. Wood.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I do not think that we ought to allow this Bill to pass its final stage here without a word or two on its provisions. I want to say how very pleased the administrators of National Health Insurance are that it is the intention of the Government, after the passing of this Measure, to consolidate all the Acts relating to National Health Insurance, but there is one point I want the right hon. Gentleman to clear up, if he will, before we pass the Bill finally. He was good
enough in the earlier stages of the Measure to deal with the case of the man who became a voluntary contributor and who, being unemployed, thought that the provisions of this Measure would never come to pass. Transitional regulations are to be drafted in order to deal with that case, and the question has been put to me as to when the voluntary contributor who is unemployed will stop paying his contributions. It will be remembered that it has been a great hardship for an unemployed man to be called upon to pay the whole of the contributions of both his employer and himself on the assumption that he was doing so in order to keep himself in full insurance and pension benefit. I do not know whether the insured person in that category will stop paying at once, or whether he will be called upon to continue for a short period further.
The hon. Gentleman opposite, and the hon. Lady particularly, were very fulsome in their praise because the right hon. Gentleman had given way on the question of maternity benefit. I was rather sorry to hear of the large way they looked at the concession. Quite frankly, in the administration of maternity benefit, it is a very infinitesimal sum, and it must be remembered, too, that the Government are not finding the money for this maternity benefit. It is true that it is not coming out of the funds of the approved societies, but it will be found from the contributions of the insured population and the payments made by the employer, with just a modicum from the State when the benefit is paid. So there is nothing after all to put on the hoardings. The Bill it will be remembered, is the outcome of a great agitation conducted by the Parliamentary Labour party for a number of years. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] At least I have one supporter who cheers me. It is true to say, however, in spite of all that, that were it not for the feeling that was shown among Members of all parties that the unemployed were not getting a fair crack of the whip in respect of their pension, this Bill, naturally, would not have been produced. Indeed, in spite of partisan feeling, we are glad that the unemployed are to be saved from one of the gravest tragedies that could befall them. I know nothing that would be psychologically so depressing to an
unemployed man as to find that he was to lose even his 10s. a week pension at 65 years of age. The Government have come down in the end and granted, within this scheme, the sum of £750,000.
I want to make a parting shot by way of repetition—it is almost in grand opera style by this time—and to thrust it home at the expense of this Government, which is made up in the main of the Tory party, that were it not for the Tory party in 1926 this Bill would not have been necessary at all. The time will come when the approved societies and the insured population of this country will want not only the £750,000 provided in this Measure, but the other £2,000,000 per annum which is due to them, and which was taken away from them by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) in 1926. Having said that, we are thankful for a few crumbs from the table of the capitalist class.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. WELLWOOD JOHNSTON: Before this Bill receives the Third Reading, I wish to draw attention to one matter in which I claim that it makes some change of procedure as compared with existing legislation in respect to free insurance and the extended insurance periods. It is a change which, I think, may prove unfortunate for claimants to pensions whose title thereto is found to be dependent on whether they were qualified on an extended insurance period, or whether they have been entitled to postponement of the commencement of the free period owing to incapacity, or whether they are entitled to prolongation of the free period or extended period owing to illness. No reference has been made to this point. The House will be aware that under the National Health Insurance Acts disputes and questions arising fall, in the last resort, to be decided by the Minister. In contrast to that, under the Pensions Acts, every dissatisfied claimant has an unqualified right, because he does not need to obtain leave to have his case referred to a referee. This Bill provides for certain people an extended insurance period after the free insurance period. The people who may qualify for that are those who have had 10 years' continuous insurance, and the further condition that is necessary is, that during their free insurance period they should have been available
for, but unable to obtain, employment. But how is that fact to be ascertained? According to this Bill it has to be ascertained in one way, namely, it must be approved to the satisfaction of the approved society, or, in the event of a dispute, in the manner provided by this Act. That occurs in a new Sub-section of the 1924 Act and, therefore, means in the manner provided by that Act.
Accordingly, the sole jurisdiction to determine questions of unemployment during the free period for the purpose of entitlement, to an extended period will rest with the Minister, and in Scotland his functions are exercised by the Department of Health. Therefore, even where the question involved in a particular case is not a health insurance question but a pensions question, the pensions referees will not have jurisdiction to deal with it, and the claimant to pension will not have, as he has had in other matters, the right to go to the referee, but his right to an extended insurance period will depend upon the decision, in the last resort, of the Government Department under the Health Insurance Acts. I should have said, of course, that for pensions purposes, insurance means insurance under the Health Insurance Acts, and that in other matters the pensions referees have jurisdiction, and exercise it, to decide whether or not a person is insured at a particular time. I must contrast this new specification of the mode of proof of unemployment to qualify for an extended period with the existing one under former legislation. In the 1928 Act, which in this particular is not affected by the 1932 Act, all that is said is that the extended period shall be allowed, if the man proves, without any further specification, as there is here, by a particular mode of proof. That provision left it open for the referee under the Pensions Acts where a pensions question was involved to exercise jurisdiction upon the question of whether or not a man was entitled to an extended insurance period.
I do not know what has been the practice in England, but I am told that in Scotland the referees under the Pensions Acts have asserted jurisdiction in these matters, and have exercised them. I am told that their intervention was resented by the Department of Health, who thought that they had no authority in regard
to this question and threatened to have the matter tested by taking a case to the Court, but they did not do so. I am informed that it is upon this kind of question that the referees under the Pensions Acts have not uncommonly differed, to the advantage of the claimant, from the Departmental point of view. Accordingly, I cannot but suspect that the insertion of new words in this Bill is deliberate and designed to prevent the referees under the Pensions Act, even where the Pensions Act is involved, from deciding whether or not during unemployment and during the free period a man is entitled to the extended insurance period. This matter was brought to my notice by one of the referees who explained that he had no interest in the matter, because it would mean less work for him, but it struck him as rather a deliberately unobtrusive way of getting rid of jurisdiction in certain matters which the Department dislike.
Exactly the same thing occurs in the Bill in two other places. The Bill provides that where a person is incapacitated by illness at the end of the period of employment his free period will not begin until the end of the incapacity. There, again, under the Bill the incapacity requires to be proved to the satisfaction of his approved society or, in the event of dispute, in the mariner provided by this Act, that is, by the Minister. The corresponding provision in existing legislation simply says that the free period will be postponed if he is incapacitated at the particular time, without any reference as to how the incapacity is to be determined. There, again, in pensions questions in Scotland the pensions referees have exercised jurisdiction and decided upon the matter. Similarly, in one other place the Bill provides that if a person is sick at what otherwise would be the termination of the free or extended insurance period, the period shall extend to a certain date after the termination of incapacity. Again, proof of incapacity by this Bill is required to be made in a particular way which excludes any jurisdiction, even if a pensions question is involved, upon the part of the referee under the Pensions Act.
I do not want to labour the matter. It is a Committee point, and I am sorry that I did not know about it sooner. I am bound to say that in this particular
the Bill makes a change from former Acts dealing with free and extended insurance periods. It is a change in phraseology which involves a change in law, and in Scotland a serious change in practice from the point of view of pensions claimants. It is the duty of those who make changes in the law to justify them, but no word of justification of this change has been offered. It is an infringement of the general right of the pensions claimant, given to him by the Act of 1925, of having his case, if he is dissatisfied, referred to the referee. It is true that when the Pensions Act was passed there was no such thing as an extended insurance period, but when the extended insurance period was introduced it was introduced in such terms as to leave it open to the pensions claimant to go to the pensions referee upon the question of whether he was entitled to the extended period. Lastly, this change is bad in principle, because wherever possible it is highly desirable to have all these questions decided by an independent tribunal and not to have them left to the decision of the Government Department which is responsible for administering them. Having drawn attention to the matter, I hope that the Minister may see his way, in another place, to revert to the same phraseology that has been used in these matters in previous Acts.

6.51 p.m.

Sir RICHARD MELLER: The Bill has gone through with such smoothness, and so free from criticism from the Opposition, that my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) rather spoilt the praise which is due on this occasion for the concession which the Minister has made. This is not the occasion when we want to look a gift horse in the mouth. The case was put for some consideration to be given to those persons who were to be deprived of benefit. The restoration of maternity benefit is a real concession. It was said earlier that it would be a great concession and a matter of great importance. I am sure that it will be much appreciated by those who would have found themselves in the unfortunate position of not being able to get the maternity benefit when an addition to their family came along.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton has said that the Labour party have been largely responsible for working up an agitation and bringing about this improvement in the conditions of those persons who are likely to pass out of insurance. My hon. Friend was prevented by innate modesty from paying a tribute to the approved societies. The approved societies have for a number of years made contributions towards keeping in benefit those persons who might otherwise have passed out of insurance from year to year, and it is very largely due to their action in coming forward to the Ministry and placing the facts before it that we have had this Bill introduced. The approved societies are making quite a considerable contribution, and the Government have followed their example and have lent their aid and come forward with the assistance which we are all applauding to-night.
I am sure the House would like to take note of the fact that the finances of the National Health Insurance scheme have been conducted throughout in a remarkably good way. From time to time in this House for many years, long before I came here, suggestions have been made for improvement, but the answer has generally been: "The suggestion is very excellent, but where is the money to come from?" The actuary brought forward the scheme in the first place, but matters were so arranged that although we were met with a blank refusal he has been able to find some cranny where the money could be got. In their difficulty the approved societies have turned to the widow's cruse of oil, which faileth not. We were told that there was no money available for this concession with regard to the maternity benefit, but it has been found. If other schemes of social insurance had been framed and conducted on the same lines as the National Health Insurance scheme, there would have been much more content in regard to those schemes than there is to-day.
I want to add my word of congratulation to the Minister, and in doing so I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton will agree with me that the approved societies are entitled to their share of congratulation. They have throughout these difficult years from time to time lent their aid on behalf of their distressed members and have sacrificed some of the benefits which
might have gone to their more fortunate brothers. Now, we have arrived at bins stage when at last we are going to remove from the minds of people the distressing feeling that from year to year they do not know whether the benefit for which they have looked and on which they have counted, namely, their pension, will be secured at the age of 65. The provision has been made that 10 years insurance shall make such a person's pension position secure. Whether it appears on the hoardings or not, whether or not my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton says, "I have done this for you," and whether or not he gives due credit to the Government, we can say this that we are all very pleased that the Government have been able to accept the very reasonable request that has been made.

6.56 p.m.

Mr. BANFIELD: I want to follow up a point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) when he expressed the hope, which is certainly felt by those of us who are connected with approved societies, that we may get a consolidation Bill as soon as possible. The hon. Member opposite raised a point in which he said that the referee would not be called in. That is one of the points which shows the absolute necessity for a consolidation Bill. It is extraordinarily difficult for the ordinary man to follow the ramifications of the National Health Insurance Act, and the sooner we get a consolidation Bill the better. My hon. Friend opposite made a plea for the referees that they should be engaged to consider disputes under the Bill. I am not at all sure that the referee is the best person. Referees must be lawyers. If it came to a question of a case being decided by a lawyer or by the right hon. Gentleman's Department, I am not at all sure that I would not prefer my case to go before the Department than before a lawyer. I am always interested when an hon. Member says that a referee has told him that it would make less work for him, and that he did not want it, but he goes on to say, "You might draw attention to it." That means, of course, that they want to get hold of the job if they possibly can. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that so far as that point is concerned the case is fairly well met within the provisions of the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Sir R. Meller), who is connected with the approved societies, naturally declares: "Look what good chaps we are in the approved societies. Look how excellently we manage the business." While I am satisfied that so far as finance is concerned the approved societies on the whole have administered the National Health Insurance Act in a way that is to be admired, I think it would be a great mistake to imagine that the present method of administration is necessarily one that is best for the people. I am satisfied that the position that has been disclosed during the discussion of this Bill under which certain approved societies can give benefit while other societies cannot, is capable of very drastic amendment. I want to put in a plea which I made in the Committee stage. The intention of the National Health Insurance Act was that where people paid the same amount of money for benefit they should be equally entitled to the same benefit. It seems to me unreasonable that some societies, not because of any fault of their own but simply because of accident of trade and occupation, are left in a position that they cannot give to their members the same benefits as other societies.
It would be ungrateful if we did not acknowledge, from whatever source it comes, that this Bill is a step in the right direction. I am not concerned very much—and I do not hink any Member who studies the interests of his constituents is concerned either—as to who may claim the credit for this particular bit of work. As long as the job gets done, and some injustice is removed, then I think the House as a whole, irrespective of party, is proud to be able to take part in helping forward work of this kind. It would have been rather unfortunate if the right hon. Gentleman had left this job undone. Whatever may be said about its having been caused by Labour party agitation, public opinion generally was in favour of this concession to the unemployed. Had the Minister put this demand aside and done nothing about it, he would have found on an appeal to the country that there would have been a strong expression of opinion that the Government, having the opportunity, and the power and the finance, merited condemnation for not having dealt with the
matter, but they have dealt with it and I believe that on the whole it has been dealt with in as satisfactory a manner as possible, taking into consideration the finances of the approved societies. It is quite true that the approved societies are finding £750,000 and that the Government are finding the other £750,000, but there is in the balances of the approved societies generally a tremendous amount of money; and I suggest that it is no use piling up balances in the approved societies unless you are prepared to see to it periodically that these balances are used to give benefits to those who have paid in their contributions for benefits.
I am particularly pleased about the concession in relation to maternity benefits. It may not represent a great deal of money but however small it may be the fact remains that it would have been a hit of a scandal, if the House had not seen fit to find money for maternity benefit in cases where the wife of an unemployed person gives birth to a child during the time that the man is unemployed, however few cases there may be. It does credit to the good heart and to the good sense of the House that a way has been found of dealing with this matter, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on being able to find the little nest egg which has made this possible. He may find another nest egg yet. Anyway, I congratulate him on being able to find the necessary money, and I feel that the House can part with this Bill with a feeling of great satisfaction.

7.4 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I cannot agree with the last speaker in all his statements, for in his fulsome praise he has outdone supporters of the Government. To say that this Bill provides a satisfactory solution of the whole matter is to carry praise far beyond its proper measure. The most that can be said is that this Bill makes some improvement in the present position. To say that it provides a satisfactory solution is altogether wrong. I would also say to the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) that when a lawyer says a thing it does not necessarily follow that the lawyer is wrong. I say frankly that I have a great regard for the legal profession, and I could not possibly take that view. The point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stirling and Clackmannan (Mr. W. Johnston)
is a genuine point, and if the hon. Member for Wednesbury had had the experience which we have had in Scotland he would know something about it. I wish that before making his condemnation the hon. Member for Wednesbury would have done the hon. Member for Stirling and Clackmannan the courtesy of trying to understand the point with which we in Scotland are faced. The issue raised by the hon. Member is quite a legitimate one. Under the procedure under the Act certain referees are lawyers—and I cannot see the point of the condemnation of the hon. Member for Wednesbury of lawyers when it comes to this Bill. The last Labour Government have not a bonnie record in this matter. I remember that it was the last day of the year in Parliament before they introduced a prolongation Bill and I did not feel too happy about that. I say that the point raised by the hon. Member is one of some substance. We have been dealing with referees in Scotland and they have helped to make the Act more tolerable to poor people—in spite of what the last speaker has said. I happen to know a sheriff who did a great deal to make the Act more tolerable to poor persons and I should be less than a man if I did not say that, because I came into contact with him day in and day out in the earlier days of the Act.
One point I want to raise is that those who are qualified by 10 years of insurance are to have guaranteed their medical benefits and pension rights. I find that many approved societies are issuing buff-coloured post-cards to these people and notifying them that they have ceased to qualify for medical benefits. So far as the position exists at the moment, this is correct. But it is not the position with regard to new applicants. I have interviewed during the past week-end from all parts of the City of Glasgow between 40 and 50 of these people who have received these notifications; and I have sent two of the cards to the Secretary of State for Scotland to raise with him the principle of the whole thing. The people who came to me thought that their medical benefits were safeguarded, and naturally when they got these post cards they were alarmed, annoyed and worried about the matter. I would ask the Minister if something cannot be done by approaching the friendly societies to get this
thing stopped. It is on the border-line to do it. Legally speaking, this is not an A ct yet, and consequently these people have passed out. But everyone knows that this Bill will be an Act, and it is useless to add to the anxiety of people who have already suffered from a terrible spell of unemployment. Another point which I would like to raise is with regard to information about this Bill. I say nothing about the provisions for consolidation, for if you consolidate the law it becomes more difficult to alter and I want to have those Insurance Acts considerably altered. But it is very important that the Minister should make the provisions of this Bill known in as simple a fashion as possible. I would like to see issued through the approved societies and the post offices simple literature explaining the provisions of this Bill in a simple way to the persons concerned. I trust that the Minister may be able to do something of that kind.

7.9 p.m.

Sir K. WOOD: I desire to thank the House very much for the friendly reception it has given to this Bill and also for the number of very helpful suggestions which have come from all quarters of the House to improve and complete the Bill. When a Minister makes a concession he may himself claim credit for having made it, but, on the other hand, the Opposition Member or other gentleman who suggested it can always say that he forced the Minister to do it. I have observed that on several occasions, and it may very well be that this will happen so far as this Measure is concerned. This does at any rate show the value of a careful examination of measures of this kind by a Committee of the House and the value of all the processes that Bills have to go through. I read in certain books of people who sometimes get impatient and want to issue decrees and matters of that kind. At any rate so far as this Measure is concerned, he would have to be a powerful dictator who could issue a decree which would be sufficient to meet all the varying requirements of a scheme of National Health Insurance.
I readily admit that very valuable suggestions were made on the Committee stage. After all, that is what the House of Commons is here for. I claim that improvements have been made in the Bill which will bring a number of benefits to a
number of persons affected by unemployment which they would not otherwise have received. So far as the point put by the hon. Gentleman opposite is concerned, I would like to say that under the Pensions Acts insurance means insurance under the National Health Insurance Act and the last named Act provides machinery for determining disputes as to the continuance of insurance; and the Bill makes it clear that the referees under the Pensions Act are bound by the final decision given under the National Health Insurance Act machinery as to continuance of insurance under that Act. So far as we know that position has never been disputed in England, but in Scotland, I understand, pension referees claim that they have jurisdiction on the question. If I can elucidate the matter further—and it is obviously complicated—I will endeavour to communicate with both the hon. Gentlemen on that point.
Another question was put to me by the hon. Gentleman opposite about the position of those persons who became voluntary contributors with a view to preserving their insurance rights and I am glad to say that these persons will not have to make any further payment at all, not even up to the end of the year. It will be unnecessary for them to make any further payment under this scheme. Therefore I think the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied so far as those persons are concerned. I only want to say further that I am particularly glad that a way has been found so that insured persons who have suffered from a prolonged period of unemployment will not be deprived of their title to maternity benefit. This is all the more satisfactory as it will not impose further cost either on the Exchequer or on the approved societies. It is also satisfactory to know that those who have elected as voluntary contributors to continue their insurance will not suffer any disadvantage from having taken that course. They will be able, on complying with the usual conditions, to obtain the benefits now given to unemployed persons in connection with the continuance of insurance.
There was another matter dealt with on the Committee stage to which I should like to refer. It is, I think, particularly desirable and fair to provide that on the death of a man who received old age pension under the special provisions of
the Measure, his widow should be covered for pension whenever he died. That is, I think, a very useful concession. On one point I disagree with the hon. Gentleman opposite for I am one of those who are glad that a number of Amendments have been made in the Measure which will facilitate the task of the consolidation of the Statutes respecting National Health Insurance. I know that many persons desire that course to be taken because in the process of consolidation you can perhaps make the Measure itself a little simpler.
The Bill certainly secures that an insured person who has occasional periods of unemployment not exceeding 21 months in duration shall not suffer any reduction whatever in benefits to which he or she may be entitled. His arrears will be completely excused, and the benefit periods for a person will be treated in just the same way as if he had been in continuous employment. This will be a real and welcome benefit affecting some 5,000,000 insured persons. The Bill goes further and provides for the still more unfortunate person who suffers from prolonged unemployment. Any person who has been insured for 10 years before becoming unemployed will be entitled to medical and maternity benefits and his old age and widows' and orphans' pension will be maintained unimpaired as long as his unemployment continues. It is all the more satisfactory that in making these changes the financial stability of national insurance will not be in any way jeopardised, and so far as approved societies are concerned not only will they be of great value to those members who unhappily suffer from unemployment but will result in a great simplification of the working of national insurance. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), I will see if it is possible to give a simple description of the Measure, and so far as the cards which have been sent out are concerned I will see what can be done in that matter.
I thank the House for the rapid progress it has made with the Bill. It will be possible, within a short period now, not only to proceed with the necessary steps to put this Measure into operation, but also to avoid certain distasteful and onerous tasks which would otherwise have been necessary. Within the next
few weeks in the ordinary course of things approved societies would have been engaged in the heavy task of preparing and sending out some 5,000,000 arrear notices to their members, and many millions of insured persons would have received the unwelcome information that unless within a limited time they could find a substantial sum of money their benefits would be reduced or altogether suspended during the year. Such notices, consequent upon unemployment, will happily be no longer required and approved societies will be relieved of this unwelcome task. Above everything else, insured persons themselves will be spared the heavy blow of receiving these notices. It is in that respect that Parliament, I think, can claim that this Bill will really bring substantial advantages to insured persons.
There is one further observation I want to make for the benefit of the hon. Member opposite who has given various reasons why this Measure has been made possible. I will put this for his consideration as the real, practical reason why the Measure has been possible and why these benefits will be given to the unemployed. I hope the hon. Member will note it for his next week-end speeches. There has been 30,000,000 weeks' more work, more employment, in 1934 than in 1932. It is because of this and the increased contributions which approved societies have received that the financial position has been restored and that these benefits can be given. Hon. Members opposite, I hope, will pardon me if I issue a poster in that respect.

Orders of the Day — HOUSE OF COMMONS DISQUALIFICATION (DECLARATION OF LAW) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

7.22 p.m.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The Bill has reference to a particular matter upon which some doubt has been felt. It does not provide for the appointment of an additional Under-Secretary
of State for Foreign Affairs, but it removes doubts as to whether in the event of a second Under-Secretary of State being appointed he may sit and vote in Parliament. The question of the appointment of such an Under-Secretary of State was debated on the 10th July in Committee of Supply when the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition raised the matter. His criticisms were answered by the Prime Minister, who said that he desired to have a team for the work which lies in front of those who are responsible for foreign affairs and for questions which may arise in connection with League of Nations affairs. There is a doubt, which I felt, as to whether or not the appointment of a second Under-Secretary of State under any principal Secretary of State is in accordance with what Parliament has always intended.
The House will observe that the Bill is drafted so as to make it plain that it is "for the avoidance of doubt." There is no statutory provision which prohibits the appointment of as many Under-Secretaries of State to any one principal Secretary of State as may be thought proper, but there have, in fact, been no cases of more than one being appointed who may speak and sit and vote in Parliament—with two exceptions. The first exception—I am not sure that it is an exception—was in 1918, when the Secretary to the Department for Overseas Trade was empowered to be appointed jointly by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Board of Trade, and it was provided that, if any appointment was made by the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the person appointed should perform the functions of Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Foreign Office and of Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. That was a special case and an Act of Parliament was passed to that effect. The second exception—and again I am not sure that it is an exception—was in 1925 when the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs was first appointed. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) held the dual position of Secretary of State for the Colonies and Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, and serving in that dual capacity he had an Under-Secretary of State in respect of the
Colonial Office and another in respect of Dominion affairs.
It was thought then that it was not necessary to have any legislation empowering such appointments being made, and I think that that was the right decision, for, this much is plain, that a principal Secretaryship of State is only in theory divided into the different Secretaryships of State with which we are familiar. They are not different offices; there is no distinction so as to make different offices of the different Secretaryships of State. But there seems to be no doubt, if anyone has the energy to look up the legislation which has been passed in regard to Under-Secretaries of State, that Parliament intended that there should be only one Under-Secretary of State to each principal Secretary of State. I do not propose to trouble the House with a disquisition on the legal position. The most interesting statute is that of 1742, the object of which was:
For further limiting or reducing the number of officers capable of sitting in the House of Commons.
And it was thereupon enacted that a number of officers who were named—
should not be admitted to sit in Parliament.
The important Section in that Act Section 3 then follows:—
Provided that nothing in this Act shall extend to the Secretaries to the Treasury, the Secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretaries to the Admiralty or the Under- Secretary of State to any of His Majesty's principal Secretaries of State.
I could give other Acts of Parliament which seem to suggest the same doubt as to whether Parliament ever intended that any one principal Secretary of State should have more than one Under-Secretary of State who should be eligible to speak and vote and sit in Parliament. The Bill, therefore, proposes that:
For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that … the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs may have two Parliamentary Under Secretaries of State, and in that case neither Parliamentary Under Secretary is disqualified by his office from being elected to, or sitting and voting in, the House of Commons.
The second part of the Bill deals with a different subject matter. Under Section (2) of the Re-election of Ministers Act, 1919, which was passed for a particular purpose in Coalition days, it was
provided that a Privy Councillor who was appointed a Minister of the Crown at a salary, without any other office being assigned to him, shall not be disqualified from sitting in the House of Commons. My right hon. Friend who is now known as Minister for League of Nations Affairs was appointed when the announcements were made in this form: "Minister without Portfolio for League of Nations Affairs." If he had been appointed as Minister without Portfolio, there would have been no necessity for the second part of this Bill, but having been appointed as Minister without Portfolio for League of Nations Affairs it looks uncommonly as if by that form of expression he has a new office, and if that were the right view he would be disqualified from sitting in the House of Commons by reason of the Statute of Anne, which is the ancestor of all these difficult complications as to who may sit and vote in the House of Commons. The second part of the Bill merely declares, again, "for the avoidance of doubt," that
for the purposes of Section two of the Re-election of Ministers Act, 1919 (which enables certain Ministers to sit in the House of Commons), a Minister who has not the charge of any public department is not to be treated as having had an office assigned to him by reason that his appointment provides for his performing, or by reason that he performs, particular duties.

Earl WINTERTON: The Attorney-General has explained Section 2 of the Act referred to, but he has not dealt with the proviso to that Section:
Provided that not more than three Ministers to whom this Section applies shall sit as Members of that House at the same time.
If the House passes this Bill will it abrogate that proviso?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I can answer that question very simply. My Noble Friend need not be afraid that this Bill will affect in the least that limitation on the number of Ministers without portfolio who may be appointed. This is merely to provide for the very limited object which I have mentioned, namely, that if a Minister, one of the three Ministers who may be appointed under that Act of Parliament, has certain duties named which he is particularly to perform, he shall not be regarded as holding a new office so as to disentitle him to speak in this House. There will be no
abrogation of the proviso to which my Noble Friend has referred. Some ingenious Member of the House, some Parliamentarian, or some constitutional lawyer, may say that the Government have been unduly nervous about this matter, and if so, I am the nervous person. I hope the House will think that it was the more proper course to lay the matter frankly before it in order that all possible doubts might be removed, and that we might be quite sure that the Government will proceed regularly if eventually it is decided to appoint the Under-Secretary whom the Prime Minister mentioned in the Debate the other week.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move, to leave out "now", and at the end of the Question to add "upon this day three months."
This Bill is intended to facilitate the appointment of an extra Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The whole purpose of it, as we have been told by the Prime Minister, is to complete his Foreign Office team. The Bill, therefore, raises a point of policy. I do not understand why it should be left to one of the Law Officers of the Crown to introduce a Bill of this kind and to deal purely with a number of technicalities on an issue raised in this House as a very large one of policy—the question of the appointment of additional Ministers—without some explanation as to why it is necessary at this juncture to have four Ministers for Foreign Affairs, and also why it is necessary to provide for other new Ministers. If one wanted to give a short title to this Bill one would describe it as "Viscount Cranborne (No. 2) Bill." It is a very exceptional thing, but it is true that the Noble Lord has had two Acts of Parliament solely concerned with himself.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: One Act and one Bill.

Mr. ATTLEE: One Act and one Bill. That is extremely rare. I say at once that the first was a purely technical matter which arose out of something concerned with the Post Office, and this House passed the necessary legislation to take away from the Noble Lord any disabilities that he might suffer through the purely inadvertent act of someone else. This Bill is not opposed by us on the
ground of any objection to the personality of the Minister whom it is proposed to appoint. Quite the contrary. I think everyone will agree that we are all glad to see the Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Cranborne) promoted to the Ministry. What we have to consider is why it is necessary to introduce legislation of this kind and to swell the already pretty heavy list of places in the Government. The learned Attorney-General did not mention the real purpose of those eighteenth century Statutes. They were passed in order to prevent the House of Commons being dominated by the place-men of the Crown. This House ought to be very jealous in seeing that it has not an excessive proportion of Members bound hand and foot to the Government.
The explanation we have had so far from the Minister with regard to this appointment is that he wants a strong team. He said that he wanted to promote the Noble Lord in order to play with the team. I do not know what game it is that is to be played. Evidently it is a four-handed game of some kind. Why have four on one side and not three? The next point that arises is, why it is necessary to have a team of four to conduct the foreign affairs of this country? It is an entire innovation. Formerly we were perfectly content with one Minister for Foreign Affairs and an Under-Secretary to answer for him as a rule in the House in which he did not happen to have a seat. In all the difficulties of the nineteenth century, where the possibility of getting into touch with our representatives abroad was far more difficult for the Foreign Office than it is to-day, we managed all right with one Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Now, although there are the telephone and the telegraph, although our Ministers for Foreign Affairs spend almost as much time in the air as on the ground and they can in a few hours reach any capital to see anyone, we are told that we must have a team of four persons. Apparently the team is to be divided into two pairs, a home pair and a travelling pair.
I have mentioned that the Minister said he wanted a strong team. I thought perhaps it was a game of bridge that was to be played. Then we have the peripatetic Minister. We have had him for some time, and we are all agreed as to
the importance of having a Minister present at Geneva. But why do the Government want another peripatetic Minister? Is he to run about all the various capitals of Europe We have had no explanation as to what this fourth Member of the team is going to do. We do not know whether he is a full back or a half-back, a three-quarter or a forward, or what his particular place is in the team. For the sake of argument let us grant that the Prime Minister is right, that foreign affairs are in such a difficult situation that the Government must have a strong team. Why cannot the Prime Minister make up a strong team from his existing resources? Let us have a look at what he has got.
He has a Lord President of the Council, an ex-Foreign Secretary with nothing whatever to do. Why could not he be part of the strong team? Why could not he make the fourth We have the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal. He was considered a suitable person for months on end to represent this country at the Disarmament Conference at Geneva. Why is he left out of the team altogether? There are a couple for you. Then we have a third Minister who might lend a hand, the Chancellor of the Duchy. He is available, a man of great experience, used to dealing with principalities and powers. I cannot see in the least why he should not form part of the team. There is another Minister who has a fairly light burden in normal times, and that is the Dominions Secretary, used to diplomacy, accustomed in the last four years to the handling of difficult relations with the great new nations which form part of the British Commonwealth—Canada, New Zealand, Ireland, Newfoundland, and so forth. Why should not he have taken his place in the team? And there is really another Minister who is already in the Foreign Office team, and that is the Secretary for Overseas Trade. He is a man who serves two masters; he is under the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office. We have this galaxy of talent. Why is it not being used for foreign affairs? We have to go outside them in a crowded Session and seek special Parliamentary powers in order to bring in someone else. I ask what the Lord President of the Council is doing that he cannot help in this great work. I ask what the Lord Privy Seal is doing. Are they passengers
or patients that they cannot take part in this work of foreign affairs?
We are told that this is a temporary arrangement, that the Prime Minister cannot speak for the next Government and that he has decided in this way to meet particular difficulties. But I want to know how this team is going to function. It is rather a new thing to have to imagine that foreign affairs cannot be conducted by a Secretary of State in this country acting through his proper representatives, the Ambassadors in all the foreign capitals. I want to know what has happened to the Ambassadors. They seem to be mere post offices to-day. They are allowed to take part in functions, but when any business has to be done a peripatetic Minister has to fly over. I agree that we want some authority at Geneva for League of Nations affairs, but if you have a Secretary of State here with Ambassadors in foreign capitals, and if you have a Minister for League of Nations Affairs at Geneva, why do you want another one running around? I should have thought that, however many foreign policies the Government are pursuing at the same time, they might manage to carry them all on through the same channels. I cannot understand this extra fourth member for the Foreign Office.
A further point arises, a serious matter, and that is the constant increase of Ministers. I do not think there is any doubt that there are too many Ministers in certain Departments. I do not want in the least to attack any individual, but just look at the staffing of some of our Ministries. We have eight Ministers for the fighting Services. I do not believe that eight are needed. I have been one of them myself for a time, and I am sure that my colleagues could have done my work. There are eight defence Ministers. There are six Ministers for dealing with the British Empire—two for the Colonies, two for the Dominions and two for India. The Government are allowed to have four Members for foreign affairs, leaving out of account the Secretary for Overseas Trade. In addition, they have four holders of sinecures. In every Ministry there is one Minister and one only who can take responsibility. The others should be his representatives and his assistants. I think a very anomalous position is set up by having a Secretary
of State for Foreign Affairs and a Minister for League of Nations Affairs. I dare say the present occupants of those offices will get on perfectly well together but it may not always be so and it must always be difficult to define where the authority of the one begins and where the authority of the other begins. The phraseology of this Bill strikes me as rather curious. It states that
the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs may have two Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State.
So he has. He has really got the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for League of Nations Affairs. They are both "his" Under-Secretaries of State but I do not know that that phraseology is all right. I thought they were His Majesty's Under-Secretaries of State but perhaps I am wrong in that view. In any case, I thought that the fourth in the team was going to be designated, to run in double harness with the Minister for League of Nations Affairs but under this Bill he becomes one of the combination in which the leading force is the Foreign Secretary.
Really, this Bill is not the right way of dealing with the matter. The Prime Minister in his speech pointed out the numerous anomalies which existed. Would it not have been far better in a Bill like this to have removed some of the old regulations which divide Ministers into watertight compartments and make arrangements that this Minister must sit in this House and that Minister in the other House and so forth. While granting what the Attorney-General said about the mystical properties of a Secretary of State, in effect, in a modern Government all these heads of principal Ministries should be practically on the level. I think this patching of the machine is very undesirable—a patchwork based not on principles but on persons. Instead of thinking how to make an effective machine, all that is thought of is how to work in certain persons. That is entirely wrong.
With regard to paragraph (b) in Clause 1 that, I understand, is mainly intended to deal with the unfortunate fact that on the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) the Government went so far as to mention the duties
which he was to perform, whereas when they appointed the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) they did not mention any duties at all—unless thinking is a duty. I understand that as soon as we pass this Bill the Noble Lord will be able to receive a designation but just because we have mentioned that he is to be concerned with thought, he will not be held to have charge of any public department, there being, in fact, no public department dealing with thought. I gather that because we have mentioned the League of Nations it will be all right with regard, to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington, but, after all, this is opening a very wide door for Ministers to enter. Now it will be possible to appoint Ministers here and Ministers there and there will be no obligation to define any of their functions.

Earl WINTERTON: Yes, there is under the Act.

Mr. ATTLEE: This only applies to three, and we shall possibly have another short Bill when somebody else has to have a job, and they will change the three into four. Paragraph (b) refers to Section 2 of the Re-election of Ministers Act, 1919. That Section was amended by the Act of 1926 and perhaps whoever replies will make clear the effect of that amendment of the 1919 Act. Paragraph (b) deals with the disqualification of persons for re-election to this House, but the Act of 1926 altered and widened the Act of 1919. I am moving that this Bill be read upon this day three months because this is a sloppy way of dealing with Government business. It is not an attempt to reorganise the machinery of government—a reorganisation which we need very badly. It is not an attempt to delimit functions but it is an attempt to fit a certain number of persons into the framework.
I think this House ought to register an emphatic protest against new Ministers being appointed in these circumstances. There are persons occupying positions in the Ministry about whose work we know absolutely nothing. If we wanted an extra person to complete this team I am sure we should all welcome the appointment of the Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset to one of the existing Ministries without Portfolio. But
absolutely nothing has been put forward in support of this Second Reading, and I would emphasise that it is, in my view, insulting to the House of Commons that a Bill such as this, dealing with a matter of high policy, should be introduced by a Law Officer of the Crown who is not responsible for policy and who bases his argument purely on technicalities.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. MANDER: I share the surprise expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) that a Measure of this kind should have been introduced by the Attorney-General in a most interesting disquisition on the legal points involved, but without any reference whatever to the wide questions of principle and public policy which it raises. I approach this Bill with mixed feelings. At first blush it might appear that it was a proposal to increase in the Government the influence of the League of Nations, since it is proposed to place in this office one who is noted for his work in that connection. If that were the only issue, one would welcome the Bill enthusiastically but wider questions of public policy are involved. In passing may I ask whether this is to be the last new Under-Secretaryship under this arrangement 7 Is it proposed that the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) should now, or later on when he gets busy, have the assistance of an Under-Secretary? I understand that there is no reason in law why he should not have one and perhaps the Minister who replies will give us some information on that point. But when one considers this question in a wider way one realises that there are all sorts of objections. The multiplication of officers and the necessary increase of expense are considerations that cannot be overlooked. I believe that since the War no fewer than 15 new offices have been created, and, as two, Irish offices have been abolished, there are now 13 more Government offices than there were before the War.
There seems to be no justification for the existing state of affairs. I took the trouble to count up the number of Members of this House who owe their positions in one way or another to support of the Government, either that they are Members of the Government or have been elected to their positions, or nominated by
the Government. The number is 59. A large number of these will have Parliamentary Private Secretaries and, I imagine, therefore, that there are in this House at the present time something approaching 100 Members, supporters of the Government, all of whom in some way or other owe daily allegiance to the Ministry. That seems a very undesirable state of affairs and one that ought not to be allowed to grow. It increases the power of the Executive over the House of Commons, and every opportunity such as this should be taken to oppose it.
It seems to me that the Government's reasons for bringing in this Measure are on these lines. It was well known for months, if not for years past, that certain members of the Government ought, in the public interest, to leave their positions but because there was a danger that by them removing then the whole structure of the National Government might be brought down, nothing was done at first. I think what I am saying is well known. However, a situation arose in May when that state of things could not be tolerated any longer and these changes had to be made. How did the Government face the position? They seemed to have adopted three courses. In some cases they had recourse to the method of sending the Minister concerned to another place as a suitable and appropriate reward for long service. In other cases, they adopted what I think was the really shameful course of turning the Minister out and giving him no reward at all—unless those Ministers have been given postdated cheques of some kind, and that later on some kind of office or promotion awaits them. But it is very sad to think that some had to go apparently without any recognition whatever.
Then in cases where neither of these courses could be adopted—because, I suppose, they would not be accepted by the victims—it was necessary to think of something fresh and so the Government in desperation said "Let us create new offices in the Government for the very purpose of making these people think that they have been given real first-class jobs, that they are greatly appreciated, and much wanted by the Government and the country. I do not say that this has happened directly but it has had repercussions further along the line in the way that Ministers have been put into these
positions. I submit that the Government have taken the line "When in doubt what to do with an unwanted Minister, create a fresh job and put him into it." That is how we have been driven towards the Measure with which we are now dealing, and although there is no question that the Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Cranborne) would be an admirable member of any Ministry and our opposition is not personal in any way, yet we are bound to enter our objection to that procedure.
Reference has been made to a Minister without Portfolio, for League of Nations Affairs. Obviously, that is a wholly contradictory description which is now recognised by the Government as without meaning and nonsensical. In certain circumstances there is a good deal to be said for having a Minister in charge of League of Nations Affairs, and in the situation at the moment I believe it will work well. It would have been extremely useful when the Disarmament Conference was sitting had there been a Minister for Disarmament who could have stayed at Geneva for weeks and even months at a time, and come back and formed contact occasionally with opinion here, instead of what actually happened. As it was, we had a Minister going out for a few days without any particular knowledge of or interest in disarmament, and coming back again and leaving chaos behind him. That was what happened on a number of occasions. I believe however there are far too many offices at the present time and that this Bill is the wrong way to deal with the difficulty which has arisen.
There is another way out, already mentioned by my right hon. Friend and that is by reducing the representation of certain Ministries in the House at the present time. It is wrong that there should be three representatives of the Admiralty, three of the War Office and two of the Air Ministry. I do not know why the Air Ministry is so modest. Perhaps it has come late into the field, and now that we are to have an enormous air fleet proposals will be made for three representatives of the Air Ministry in this House. At present, however, we have eight representatives of the Fighting Services. I suggest that six is ample and that the Fighting Services at the present time are represented out of proportion to the importance they occupy in the country and in the world under existing
conditions. I agree that in the past they have been exceedingly important, but now I look upon our Fighting Services to a large, and I hope a growing, extent as doing police work for the British Empire—which is what the Army does to a great extent now—and as potential contingents for an international police force for the preservation of world order, as in the recent example of the Saar. It is in that sense that I attended with such pride and satisfaction the Royal Military Review and shall attend the review of the Fleet to-morrow.
Is there anybody who suggests that if we were to adopt the proposals made by many hon. Members and had a Ministry of Defence we should come down and ask to be represented by eight Ministers? It seems ludicrous. Three would be adequate. At any rate, it does seem that there are too many, and that six should be a maximum. There is the further disadvantage that the over-representation of the Fighting Services has, and has had, a lamentable and unfortunate influence on the whole of our disarmament policy, not through any wickedness of the persons concerned, but simply through the very natural feelings that are roused in them by the Departments they represent.

Mr. SPEAKER: The question of disarmament cannot be discussed on this Bill.

Mr. MANDER: I was just trying to introduce an argument which I admit has strayed rather far from the actual Measure before us. My right hon. Friend also pointed out the remarkable circumstances that in this extraordinary hierarchy at the Foreign Office, the two Under-Secretaries are to be Under-Secretaries to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I thought the idea was that the Minister without Portfolio for League of Nations Affairs was to be assisted and supported, as he has been for some years in another capacity, by the Noble Lord, but apparently the Under-Secretary is not to be attached to him, and he is to run errands for the Foreign Secretary in this House just as the Noble Lord does in another House. Perhaps we can have some information as to exactly how these duties are to be allocated.
The real point is that it is not a question of passing a Measure of this kind.
It is a question of redistribution of offices, and you could quite well find all the vacancies necessary if you were to make the changes that everybody who looks carefully into the matter would admit to be necessary. I would suggest for the consideration of the Government whether the best course even now, in view perhaps of other criticisms that may be made in the course of the Debate, would not be to withdraw this Measure and to appoint an all-party committee to see how far agreement can be reached in the formation, let us say, of the next Government, for a reduction in the large number of redundant offices which now exist. I think it would be well worth consideration from a non-party point of view. We on these benches feel obliged to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, because we believe it is the wrong way to find a position for one who would be well fitted to occupy any position in a Government.

8.5 p.m.

Earl WINTERTON: I do not think it would be right, even though we are discussing this matter in the dinner hour, that the rather serious charges implicit in the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman from the Front Bench opposite and the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, who spoke with all the authority of the Liberal party, or that portion of the Liberal party to which he belongs, with his leader sitting by his side, should go unanswered. Therefore, although I have the greatest objection to speaking in the dinner hour, because after 30 years in the House I think one ought to look after the gastric juices and have dinner at a reasonable time, I should like to say a few words in answer. I am in agreement with them to this extent, that I think it is highly desirable that there should be a Bill brought in. I put this before my right hon. Friend who represents the Leader of the House for his consideration. At the commencement of the next Parliament if the Government are still in office—or if they are not, I hope the Labour party will consider the same—a Bill should be brought in to alter the whole position of offices. There are some Ministers who are receiving £2,000 for doing work which is harder than that for which other Ministers receive £5,000. There are far too many Under-Secretaries or minor offices in certain. Departments. I have never yet
been able to understand why the Admiralty thinks it necessary to have three representatives.
But none of these points affect the issue in this case. It is, of course, open to the right hon. Gentleman, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, to urge, as he did, that the Government should have taken the opportunity which has occurred over this matter to bring in an omnibus Bill, but with his knowledge of the House, he would agree that it would be a somewhat difficult thing to do at this period of the Session, and all sorts of questions would arise over it. While I sympathise with the point of view which has been put, and which is held largely on the back benches, that there should be a readjustment of the whole question of offices, I do not think that matter arises over this particular Bill. I think the Government were wise to attempt to achieve this particular object in the way that they have done. Let me come to the question of the object itself. I must confess that I was very surprised to hear the criticism of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, East (Mr. Mander). Somebody outside the House said the other day that there were only two hon. Members who believed in collective security, and one of them was the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton.

Mr. EMMOTT: Who is the other?

Earl WINTERTON: I have not permission to mention his name. It was he who told me the story. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton has always taken a most prominent part in support of the League of Nations. He has been foremost in representing the claims of the League, and foremost in urging the necessity for a whole-hearted belief in collective seourity. I do not quite understand, therefore, why he objects to the appointment to a new office of a Minister who is going to assist that question of the League of Nations. He said it would have been better two years ago to have appointed a Minister of Disarmament. He has forgotten the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Henderson). He is the head of the Disarmament Commission, and this House and the taxpayers of this country, quite properly, contribute their quota towards the right hon. Gentleman's salary.

Mr. MANDER: Of course, the President of the Disarmament Conference does not in any way represent this country or this Government.

Earl WINTERTON: I regard the proposal that there should have been a special Minister of Disarmament as rather startling. We have never heard of it before. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton made no such suggestion in the days when the Disarmament Conference was more active than it is now. I cannot see, therefore, the hon. Gentleman's point of view or the point of view of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I can see no reason for objection to the creation of an office for League of Nations Affairs.

Mr. MANDER: My point of view is that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs should be conducting the foreign affairs of this country through the League of Nations.

Earl WINTERTON: That is an arguable point of view. He has also to deal with those nations, and they are very important ones, who are not in the League of Nations—the United States of America, Japan and Germany. It might be reasonably argued that with these three great nations out of the League of Nations, due to their having resigned their membership within the last three or four years, it is ever more necessary to have a Minister to deal with League of Nations affairs in order to avoid other nations following their example. I should have thought that that would have received the most vociferous support from the Liberal and Labour Benches. Underlying the hon. Gentleman's speech—I take no objection to it; it was done with perfect courtesy and within Parliamentary form—there were some suggestions which I found rather unpleasant. It was that this office and that for the Minister of League of Nations Affairs were being created simply to fit certain people into certain jobs. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton went so far as to say that what was done was to create a fresh job for an unwanted Minister. At the same time he said that he would have been pleased to have seen the Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Cranborne) a member of the Government.

Mr. MANDER: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I was referring in general terms to jobs for unwanted Ministers. I said quite clearly that I was not referring to this particular case, but they all reacted one on another.

Earl WINTERTON: What is a job for an unwanted Minister? They are meaningless words. Surely heads of Governments do not put into office Ministers they do not want? There may be something sinister about that, and that is why I referred to it. Perhaps there is nothing sinister in what the hon. Gentleman said. Probably that is the explanation of the speech. I could have understood it if he had said that a job had been found for a personal friend or someone else for whom the Leader of the Government wanted to find a position.

Mr. MANDER: What I meant was that certain members of the Government were really not wanted by the Prime Minister, but he was too kind hearted to dismiss them, and therefore, to allow them to be appointed, in certain cases he transferred them to other offices.

Earl WINTERTON: I am really mystified, because the Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset was not a member of the late Government. I should have thought that no one could have said that that Minister for League of Nations Affairs was an unwanted Minister. There is general opinion in the House that the Minister would be an ornament to any Government. I really do not understand this charge. We are discussing whether or not the Government should have power to appoint another Under-Secretary, in fact an Under-Secretary to this new Ministry that has been created. I do not see that there is any objection to appointing some one to assist him. Hon. Members may recollect the old song "A sister to assist her" which was at one time a popular music hall song. The avowed and only object of this Bill is a temporary one.
On the general question of the position of offices I have already expressed my sympathy with the views put forward by the Opposition. It, would disingenuous if I did not add that I am also in sympathy with the views they put forward—although I do not believe the question arises under this Bill, or only
to a small extent—in regard to the tendency which has been growing up since the War on the part of all Governments, to make a growing proportion of Members of this House in some way or another connected with the Government. When I first got into the House of Commons over 30 years ago it was an unusual thing for an Under-Secretary to have a Parliamentary private secretary. In those days for an Under-Secretary to have a Parliamentary private secretary was looked upon as a sign of conceit. Now every Minister must have a Parliamentary private secretary, with the result that the figures are swollen. I have sufficient faith in the integrity and capacity of individual Members and in the integrity of the House as a whole to know that that does not have any serious effect; yet it does to some extent give a bad impression, and I think the Government might, if they are making a survey, cut down some of the offices. That will have the effect of cutting down the number of people directly connected with the Cabinet. In every Government now we see not only a solid phalanx on the Government Front Bench, but a solid phalanx on the bench behind it. Those who sit on that bench are useful to the Government, because they are often almost the only people to supply the Government with cheers. It was so in the late Labour Government, and it is so in the present Government. Apart from the good they may do in their offices, they perform a most valuable office in that direction. I assure my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour that there is no need for him to have a claque when he is on the Front Bench because he supplies it. While I support this Bill, I think that the whole question of offices might well be considered.

8.17 p.m.

Captain WATERHOUSE: I am not going to enter into the question of cheers. I so rarely find myself in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) that I want to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the fact that I find myself in that unusual position to-night. It has been said on all sides of the House, with, I think, general agreement, that the powers and numbers of Ministers have increased and are increasing and most certainly ought to be diminished. I am not going to
develop that side of the question, but I want to devote a few words to the specific thing with which this Bill deals. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limehouse said that the Foreign Office team has a team of four. Perhaps he has had inside information which I have not had, but I do not see why he should have said it was a team of four. To my mind it will be a team of five, because the Lord President of the Council will not long allow himself to be left out of that conclave. The other day I put down a question to the Foreign Secretary which was, unhappily for me, answered by the Minister without Portfolio for League of Nations Affairs. I asked how many visits had been paid to foreign countries by representatives of the Foreign Office during the last six years. I was told that there had been no fewer than 15, and I am afraid that my right hon. Friend the Minister for League of Nations Affairs thought that I was casting aspersions on him, but that was very far from my thoughts. I put down the question to the Foreign Secretary because he was one of the people who had never been out of the country. In putting that question down and in my remarks to-day, I want to make it clear that no personal matters enter into my consideration. I have the greatest respect for all five of those gentlemen in their proper spheres.
Various Ministers have been sent 15 times out of the country, and during those 15 visits they have not visited only one capital or two, but very often half-a-dozen. Those 15 journeys represented, perhaps, 30 or 40 visits to foreign diplomats and ministers. What can be the result of those visits but to make our expert diplomats, the people at the Foreign Office, feel, "What does it matter whether we get on with our job or not? Whenever there is anything spectacular to be done, we are not sent to do it, but some Member of the House of Commons or House of Lords is sent out to do it." It is most unfortunate from that point of view, but it is also unfortunate from another point of view. When a Minister from this House goes abroad to do a certain job the eyes of the Press and the world are on him. For instance, he goes to see Mussolini in Rome and makes a suggestion, which is
a proper or an improper one according to the way we feel about it. If that suggestion had been made by an ambassador and turned down, it would not have mattered at all and nobody would have known about it. He would have told the Foreign Secretary and not a word would have been said. When a Minister goes abroad, however, the thing is bandied about over the whole world. I have the greatest respect for the Ministers who do these things, but they have not had the experience and training, and they have not the intimate knowledge which fits them for carrying out these close diplomatic approaches.
When the League of Nations was first started after the War one of the main objects that Appealed to everybody was that it was a chance for the foreign secretaries of the various countries to meet from time to time, to get to know one another personally, and to discuss their points of view in a more or less informal way. If we are to have a Minister without Portfolio for League of Nations Affairs, will he go to Geneva instead of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary? It may be said that we do not know how long there will be a League of Nations at all, but we hope that it will pull through the present crisis, and that, if it does, my right hon. Friend himself will not get out of touch with foreign Ministers, but will use the League meetings, as they should be used, as a means of finding out what foreign Ministers are thinking. I hope that he will go back from that vicious policy which was first initiated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who many years ago went off and had a celebrated golf match which brought down the French Government. I hope my right hon. Friend will go back from that policy, which has done very little good, which has achieved very little, and which has brought some definite disadvantages in its train. I hope that he will not let the fact that he is appointing another Minister lead him to send more politicians abroad, but that it will lead him, on the other hand, to trust to his own diplomats and to leave expert work in expert hands.

8.23 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Samuel Hoare): A number of wide questions have
been raised in the course of this short Debate. Some of them, I should have thought, were not strictly relevant to this modest little Bill. All of them, I am sure, were raised the other day in the Debate on the Treasury Vote. None the less, I will in a sentence or two deal with each of them. A word of warning has been addressed to the Government from more than one side of the House as to the danger of increasing the number of placemen in the House of Commons. I have spent three-quarters of my career in this House as a private Member, and I am in no way out of sympathy with the word of warning that has been addressed to the Government in that respect. If there, is to be any increase in the number of Ministers, the increase must be regarded as an exceptional action on the part of the Government, and the Government of the day, whatever may be their views, must justify the particular increase. In the course of my few observations I am going to justify this particular increase.
Secondly, there have been a, number of references to the duties of particular Ministers and the reasons that prompted the Prime Minister in selecting this particular Government. It would be improper for me to trespass upon that delicate field. It is essentially the preserve of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, no matter to what party he belongs, should be given unfettered power to appoint his Government and to select the Members of that Government in the way he thinks fit. The Prime Minister made the position quite clear in the Debate the other day, and I am not going to be drawn into a discussion as to whether this or that Minister has more work than some other Minister, or why a particular Minister was given a particular post or was not given a particular post. What, however, I will do is to say that for some years past I have taken the view that the time is overdue for a general survey of Ministerial posts and Ministerial salaries. I was myself a member of a three-party Select Committee which went into this question some years ago, and I expressed the view then, and I express it now, that it is altogether anomalous that Ministers at the head of what we call the first class offices, those of the greatest importance, should be receiving different salaries and should have at their disposal different types of assistants.
I expressed the view then that Ministers should be graded and Ministers of this or that class receive uniform salaries and uniform treatment in the Cabinet. But that is a wide question and obviously outside the scope of this particular Bill. I felt, however, that I ought to make that observation in view of the comments which have been made, particularly by my Noble Friend the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). He and I, so far as I can judge, are in full agreement on that matter.
Then it was suggested, at the opening of this Debate, that it was almost an act of discourtesy on the part of the Government that the Attorney-General should have introduced this Bill and should have justified it upon legal and constitutional grounds rather than that I or some other Minister should have justified it on the wider grounds on which the Debate has subsequently turned. I do not agree with that criticism. This is a Bill with a very narrow issue. It was accurately described by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. So far as the wide issues are concerned, they were dealt with, and very faithfully dealt with, on the Treasury Vote. But let me say a word or two about the object of the Bill, apart from the more technical, legal and constitutional aspects of it. The Bill is for a very simple object. It is to give the Foreign Secretary of the day, whatever may happen in future Governments, rather more assistance than he has at present. Hitherto there have been three Ministers dealing with foreign affairs—the Secretary of State in the last Government, the Lord Privy Seal and the Under-Secretary of State in another place. The sole object of the Bill is to increase the number of Under-Secretaries by one and to enable my right hon. Friend and myself to have what we think essential for the proper exercise of our duties, namely, an Under-Secretary in this House. I can assure hon. Members that even in my short experience at the Foreign Office the weight of work has been so great that I have realised the difficulty, for instance, of dealing with questions in this House, which, as hon. Members will have noticed, are now addressed to the Foreign Secretary not on one or two particular days in the week but on every day without having an Under-Secretary in this House. The main object, again let me say, is to give my
right hon. Friend and myself that assistance in this House.
It is perfectly true that the new Under-Secretary, if he is appointed, will be specially interested in League of Nations Affairs. None the less he will be an Under-Secretary of State of the Foreign Office, and he will deal with these other matters, such as answering questions from day to day and giving my right hon. Friend and myself general assistance in our normal work. It is essential now that foreign affairs are filling everyone's mind, as they do at the present moment, that there should be an Under-Secretary of State in another place. That being so, it is necessary for us to have another Under-Secretary of State in this House. That is the sole object of this Bill. It is not intended as an outward and visible sign of a divided responsibility, or of the Foreign Office being segregated into two watertight compartments. My right hon. Friend the Minister for League of Nations Affairs made it quite clear at the end of the Debate last Thursday that there is no divided responsibility at the Foreign Office, that the Department is single, whole and indivisible, and that there is no risk, such as that suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), who for the last three years has had dyarchy on the brain, of dyarchy being introduced into the Foreign Office.
Let my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Leicester (Captain Waterhouse) take note of this observation. There is no intention, if we have this extra assistance so urgently needed by both of us, that we are going to increase the habit of Ministers travelling about the Continent from one capital to another. I am very conservative in my outlook in that respect. I share with him the view that we must make the fullest possible use of our expert Ambassadors and Ministers, and that the greater the responsibility that is given to them the more effective will be their work in the various capitals where they are; but with the world as it is to-day, and he himself admitted the fact, it is necessary for one or other of us to attend the meetings of the Assembly and the Council of the League. In the necessary course of events there will have to be many days when my right hon. Friend will be absent
in Geneva. Upon those occasions I am sure it will be of great value to the Government to have a Minister at home. I will tell the House of my own experience. I have now been in several Governments, and on more than one occasion it has been very difficult, when the only available Minister has been at Geneva dealing with very complicated negotiations and there has been left in London and in the Cabinet no other Minister closely in contact with the particular problem.
I am quite sure that it is a good plan that, normally, there should be one Minister in Geneva—no doubt in nine cases out of 10 the Minister for League of Nations Affairs—and that there should be left in London, to represent the position of the Cabinet, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I believe further that it will be a help to both of us to have this additional Under-Secretary, and particularly when the Noble Lord, to whom reference has been made by more than one speaker in the Debate, is, I should have thought, the very Member who can best help my right hon. Friend in Geneva and myself in London upon League of Nations affairs. I hope that I have said enough to the House to show that we are embarking upon no new régime or objectionable principle in making this appointment, that there is no question of dividing the responsibility of the Cabinet, and that all that we are doing is dealing, in the best way we can, with a great strain of work by a proposal which, we think, will work harmoniously and will add to the efficiency of the Foreign Office and to the effectiveness of our foreign policy.

8.37 p.m.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said that the time has, no doubt, come for a general review of the allocation of offices, and the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) said the same thing. They, no doubt, would wish the House of Commons to think that they are adopting a reasonable attitude, and that they are prepared to consider all the most cogent arguments that have been advanced against the expansion of Ministries. They are quite ready to take into account the opinions that have been expressed; meanwhile, the House must give sanction to the Bill that is now
before it. That is a doctrine not to be accepted. It is mere evasion to say that some day or other, and some how or other, they will consider the objections that have been taken to the expansion of the Ministry, and that this Bill is entirely without prejudice to such a reconsideration. That is not the issue before the House now. Similarly the right hon. Gentleman and also the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham thought that it was a very serious matter that a Ministry should be so largely expanded and that more and more Members of this House should become Members of or attached to the Government of the day. The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham was indeed quite emphatic on the point. He saw real peril; meanwhile, he was proposing to show his sense of the seriousness of that situation by to-day adding yet one more Member to the present Ministry.

Earl WINTERTON: I am very sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I really did not say that it was a peril. The words used were that I had sufficient confidence in the integrity of the individuals and of the House as a whole—I used those words—that it did not make any material difference, but it made a, bad impression outside. That is a very different thing.

Sir H. SAMUEL: The Noble Lord thinks either that it is a bad thing to have the Ministry constantly expanding, or that it is a good thing; or he may think that it does not matter one way or the other. I really should like to know which it is. Apparently it is a bad thing, but it ought to be done. Or it may be that it is a bad thing in principle which ought to be done in practice. I am reminded of an observation made by Prince Bismarck to the effect that when a Minister says he agrees with something in principle it means that he has no intention of carrying that particular principle into practice. Apparently that is the Noble Lord's view. He thinks that ministries ought not to be expanded, but in practice they should.
Since the War, the tendency to expand the number of ministerial posts has become very serious. I referred to it the other day, and I refer to it again only to say that I was in error about the expansion that has taken place since the War. The figures which had been
supplied to me indicated that the new offices numbered 10; as a matter of fact, they number 12. I was under the mark because two posts had been omitted, the Under-Secretaryship for Air and the Under-Secretaryship for Scotland. To that 12 we are to have three more added, which makes 15 new posts, bringing the total number of Members of the Government in this House, or Members appointed by the House, namely the Chairman and Deputy-Chairman, to no less than 60. My hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) gave the figures. Then there are Parliamentary Private Secretaries. The number of Members of the House who are in the Government or attached to it, now reach a total of about 100. That is a very serious matter, which ought to be referred to on every occasion when it is intended to expand the Government further.
The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham took my hon. Friend to task for opposing the creation of this office of Under-Secretary for League of Nations Affairs when he is so keen an advocate of the League of Nations, and always is an upholder in this House of its cause. All of us here are keen advocates of the principles of the League of Nations, but because you believe in a principle is no reason why you should appoint a new Minister in order to advocate it and promote it. If we were to do that, we should constantly have new Ministers of all kinds appointed in this House in order to promote causes in which we are particularly interested. The fact that we are opposing the Bill to-day does not in any degree indicate that we are remiss in our devotion to the League of Nations or in any way fail in our eagerness to promote its interest.
Then my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that he would not enter into the question of whether the Prime Minister was right or not to fill these offices in this way. He said that the Prime Minister of the day had an absolute right to select whatever Ministers he thought fit; certainly he has, to fill existing posts, but he has not an absolute right at his own discretion so to frame his new Government as to involve this House in the creation of three additional offices and the payment of three additional salaries. That is not a matter
within his discretion, but is a matter which this House has a right to criticise, and the Minister who defends this action aught to give reasons why it has to be accepted. When my hon. Friend beside me said that this position had been created in order to find jobs for unwanted Ministers, he did not intend to say that the actual persons who are to fill these three new posts, the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) and the Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Cranborne), are individually persons to whose presence in the Government any of us would desire to object. Far from it. His meaning, as I think was apparent to the House, and his argument, were that the Prime Minister had added three more to the total cadre of the Government, including in it the Ministers we wished to obtain while at the same time retaining in it Ministers whom we did not want. There are various Ministers who ought to have resigned their offices in order to make room for those who have now been brought in, and whose presence as individuals all of us cordially welcome.
The Foreign Secretary made his strongest point when he said that the real purpose of the Bill was to enable the Foreign Office to have an Under-Secretary in this House in order to assist the Foreign Secretary, whose duties were extremely arduous. What has been the history of this matter? There was an Under-Secretary in this House, together with a Secretary of State. The Secretary of State was my right hon. Friend who is now Home Secretary, and the Under-Secretary of State was the Minister who is now the Minister without Portfolio for League of Nations Affairs. Objection was taken in the other House to the fact that there was no official representative of the Foreign Office in that House, and that any answers on behalf of the Foreign Office had to be given by a junior Minister who was not connected with that Department. That was considered to be a reasonable objection, and, therefore, a Member of the other House was appointed Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. In this House it was realised, as my right hon. Friend has said to-day, that the Foreign Secretary ought not to be left
alone here to deal with these matters, to represent his Department and to answer questions, particularly as it might from time to time be necessary for him to be abroad on Government business at Geneva or elsewhere. For that reason, therefore, another Minister was brought into the Foreign Office, namely, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington, who was given the post of Lord Privy Seal in order to meet the exact point which the Foreign Secretary has made to-day. But, now that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington has been elevated to Cabinet rank, he apparently disappears as regards fulfilling the requirement of a second Minister in the House of Commons, and we are told that we must have yet a third.
I fail to see the necessity for a third. I do not see why the team of two who were in this House a few years ago, both in the Foreign Office, should not have remained as a team of two, able to assist one another in dealing with these questions. If it is essential to have a junior Minister to deal with the less important questions here in this House, there is one already attached to the Foreign Office. The Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade is appointed both by the Foreign Secretary and by the President of the Board of Trade, and there is no reason why in any emergency he should not answer questions here in this House on behalf of the Foreign Secretary, as he now answers questions on behalf of the President of the Board of Trade, as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. Consequently, it seems to me that this argument has no force, although at first sight it did appear, as stated by the Foreign Secretary, to be cogent.
Lastly, with regard to Clause 2 of the Bill, the Attorney-General has pointed out the reason why it has been inserted, namely, because, if the Minister without Portfolio were really a Minister without Portfolio, having no departmental functions, he would have been already covered by the provision in Section 2 of the Act of 1919, and no difficulty would have arisen. But here we have the double anomaly that we have a Minister without Portfolio who has a portfolio. If he had been a Minister without Portfolio, he would have been covered by the Act and nothing need have been done; but, because he
is the Minister without Portfolio for League of Nations Affairs, and, therefore, has a portfolio, special provision has to be made, since he is outside the provisions of the Act of 1919, which dealt only with Ministers without Portfolio. Surely, this title "Minister without Portfolio" becomes doubly ridiculous, and is contradicted in itself, almost in terms, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington is described as "Minister without Portfolio for League of Nations Affairs." If he is to have an Under-Secretary, what is the Under-Secretary to be called? Is he to be called "Minister without Portoctavo," or "Minister without Portduodecimo"? This ridiculous title "Portfolio" is now to be further elaborated and refined. I hope the Attorney-General or somebody else will tell us how the Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset, when this Bill passes and he takes his seat on the Treasury Bench, is to be addressed. Is he to be addressed as the Under-Secretary without Portfolio for League of Nations Affairs, or what other designation is to be attached to his office? The simplest means of avoiding this and all other difficulties is not to pass the Bill, and, if the Noble Lord is to be appointed to some office, to appoint him to some existing office, concentrating this ever-expanding Ministry into a somewhat smaller compass, and at the same time avoiding this constant multiplication of offices and these constant increases in the charges on the Exchequer.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I did not want to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but I am sure he will allow me to correct one statement that he made. He said that the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Deputy-Chairman were appointed by the Government. He will forgive me for correcting him. They are appointed solely by the House of Commons, it is true on a Motion of the Leader of the House, immediately on the Assembly of the new Parliament. It would be very undesirable that it should go forth that the appointment of the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Deputy-Chairman is an appointment of the Government; it is not.

Sir H. SAMUEL: Of course, I knew that, and perhaps it was not a very exact expression that I used, but the fact remains that these officers of the House are
appointed on the nomination of the Government of the day, and in recent years have, I think, always been appointed from the party which has come into power.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No.

Sir H. SAMUEL: I think with two exceptions—[HON. MEMBERS: "One exception."] With one exception. Almost invariably they have been appointed on the nomination of the Government of the day, and although, once they have been appointed, they have undoubtedly maintained an attitude of complete impartiality, and have withdrawn from all participation in party affairs, still the fact remains that these posts have become generally recognized as part of what used to be called Government patronage, that is to say, they are posts which are in effect within the disposal of the Government.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: With all due deference to certain expressions which have been used this afternoon by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, it seems to me to be fair to say that we are being asked this evening to give a Second Reading to a Bill the principal purpose of which is to carry a stage further the duplication of the Foreign Office. The Foreign Secretary objected to that description, and was at pains to explain that the Foreign Office will remain one and indivisible. I think, however, that a complete answer to that statement is contained in the words used by the Prime Minister himself in this House last week. Speaking on the 10th July, he said, referring to the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for League of Nations Affairs:
Both Ministers are Cabinet Ministers, and, therefore, equal.
He went on to say:
Difficulties, of course, will arise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1935; col. 363, Vol. 304.]
In my view, this proposal is a very objectionable one for many reasons. For example, there is the objection on the ground of economy. Ministries are expensive luxuries, and I submit that at the present time we are not in a position to afford additional luxuries. It may be urged that the matter is not very serious because this is only a temporary arrangement. But new Ministries have a habit
of digging themselves in, and I venture to say with all respect that even the present Prime Minister will find it au easier matter to create a Ministry than to demolish it. Therefore, I personally attach some weight to the argument of economy. Then there is the argument of divided responsibility which, I submit, is of even more importance than the argument of economy. The Prime Minister, in his speech last week to which I have referred, anticipated differences of opinion between these two Ministers who, he had pointed out, were equal. He went on to say that, if difficulties occurred, it would be the duty of the Prime Minister of the day to smooth them out. But why divide one post into two and so cause the difficulty to occur at all? Surely it is obvious that, if you have an ambitious, capable, energetic man as Foreign Secretary and another man of similar qualities as the Minister for League of Nation Affairs, one perhaps speaking in this House, the other perhaps negotiating matters in one of the capitals of Europe, serious differences are bound to arise between them. One will say or do something which he had not discussed perhaps fully before with his colleagues and the other will not feel that that is a matter in which he should share responsibility. The Prime Minister's position, already difficult, will be made more difficult. Differences of this kind in foreign policy are peculiarly difficult to deal with because of their repercussions in other countries. It seems to me to be inviting trouble to put two Ministers on an equality, both to deal with matters of the Foreign Office, and apparently anticipating that they will be doing so many hundreds of miles apart.

Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: The hon. Member forgets that the Minister for League of Nations Affairs said there would not be two Kings of Brentford, but only one.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: The Prime Minister said the opposite.

Mr. STEWART: The Minister for League of Nations Affairs spoke some days afterwards and was referring to his own office and his own position. He said, "I am proud and pleased to serve under that one king." That left no doubt in my mind.

Mr. LEWIS: I prefer to rely on the words of the Prime Minister himself—"both Cabinet Ministers and, therefore, equal." There is no possible doubt about that. On that ground of divided responsibility it is inviting trouble to contemplate this division of the Foreign Office. Another objection is that we have at present not too few but too many Ministers. I thought the Foreign Secretary was very unconvincing in the effort to show us that, whereas one representative of the Foreign Office was sufficient for another place, three were required in this House. In my view, this is a particularly unfortunate moment to suggest an expansion in the number of. Ministers dealing with Foreign Office affairs, it is suggested on the express ground of further representation at Geneva. It is becoming daily more obvious that the League of Nations is failing in the high purpose with which it was founded. It is becoming perfectly plain that for many years to come, perhaps as long as any of us in this House can hope to live, while it may be possible to settle minor matters through the League of Nations, matters of importance touching the great Powers will be settled, if at all, by direct negotiation as before. We had an example of that the other day when the Government got tired of mere talking with regard to disarmament and went directly to Germany and arranged a treaty for the limitation of naval armaments. That being so, it is clearly not a moment for us to go out of our way to create a kind of second Foreign Office for the discussion of minor matters at Geneva.
It may be said, "Something must be done. It is clearly our duty to do everything we can up to the very last moment to support the idea of collective action at Geneva." I agree, but all that we wish to do at Geneva could be done perfectly well—I suggest even better—if we bad an ambassador to the League of Nations instead of sending a Minister intermittently to take his place. I have always been brought up to believe that one of the principal advantages of our Parliamentary system of Government was that it ensured a mixture of specialised and unspecialised minds or, if you prefer it, of professional and amateur minds. You have the unspecialised mind of the Minister at the head of a Department supported by the professional civil servants who give their life to that par
ticular job. That works extremely well as long as each side does his own work and does not try to do the other man's work. Just as I should object to some distinguished civil servant coming here to address us from that Box, so I object to any Minister, however highly we may all think of him, doing work which could properly be done by an ambassador. On all these grounds I am sorry that the Bill has been brought in, and I hope

very much that if the Government persist with it, as I imagine they will, when they have tried the experiment for a short time they will think better of it and drop it.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 202 Noes, 50.

Division No. 273.]
AYES.
[9.2 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Hartland, George A.
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)
Patrick, Colin M.


Albery, Irving James
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Pearson, William G.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Penny, Sir George


Aske, Sir Robert William
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Sir Cuthbert
Percy, Lord Eustace


Assheton, Ralph
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Cheimsford)
Petherick, M.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Potter, John


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hornby, Frank
Pybus, Sir John


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Horsbrugh, Florence
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Blindell, James
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Boulton, W. W.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Bracken, Brendan
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Jamieson, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Rickards, George William


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Brown, Rt. Hon. Ernest (Leith)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Browne, Captain A. C.
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Ross, Ronald D.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Burghley, Lord
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univ.)
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

Burnett, John George
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Butler, Richard Austen
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (P'rtsm'th, S.)
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Clarke, Frank
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Salt, Edward W.

Clarry, Reginald George
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Levy, Thomas
Savery, Servington


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Liddall, Walter S.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Conant, R. J. E.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Cooper, A. Duff
Llewellin, Major John J.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Cooper, T. M. (Edinburgh, W.)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)


Copeland, Ida
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Somervell, Sir Donald


Crooke, J. Smedley
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. Sir Charles
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
MacAndrew, Major J. O. (Ayr)
Spens, William Patrick


Cross, R. H.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Stevenson, James


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Denman, Hon. R. D.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Bassetlaw)
Stones, James


Drewe, Cedric
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Storey, Samuel


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Strauss, Edward A.


Dunglass, Lord
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Elmley, Viscount
Magnay, Thomas
Summersby, Charles H.


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Maitland, Adam
Tate, Mavis Constance


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Thompson Sir Luke


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Fox, Sir Gifford
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.
Train, John


Ganzoni, Sir John
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Ward, Sarah Adelalde (Cannock)

Graves, Marjorie
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Greene, William P. C.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Grimston, R. V.
Morrison, William Shepherd
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Moss, Captain H. J.
Womersley, Sir Walter


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Hales, Harold K.
North, Edward T.
Worthington, Sir John


Hammersley, Samuel S.
Nunn, William



Hanbury, Sir Cecil
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—




Mr. Stuart and Captain Hope.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Paling, Wilfred


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Parkinson, John Allen


Attlee, Rt. Hon. Clement R.
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Banfield, John William
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Batey, Joseph
Janner, Barnett
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Jenkins, Sir William
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Buchanan, George
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Thorp, Linton Theodore

Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lawson, John James
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Daggar, George
Leonard, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lewis, Oswald
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Edwards, Sir Charles
Lunn, William
Wilmot, John


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot



Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James
Mr. John and Mr. Groves.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Nall, Sir Joseph



Question put, and agreed to.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for Wednesday.—[Sir G. Penny.]

Orders of the Day — BRITISH SUGAR (SUBSIDY) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Extension of period in respect of which, sugar subsidies are payable under 15 and 16 Geo. 5. c. 12.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

9.14 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: As this is quite a new subject, about which we know so little, and as there is no possible chance of amending the Bill, and as other business is waiting to be dealt with, perhaps it will serve the purpose of the Committee if I intimate to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture that we do not propose to prolong the proceedings this evening on the Committee stage, but we shall claim the right to say a last word on the Third Reading. I think that this pretty well represents the opinion of my hon. Friends on these benches, and of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, as long as ample opportunity is provided on the Third Reading.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I wish to add that on the Third Reading I intend to accept the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman given on another Bill, and I shall certainly go into the Division Lobby against the subsidy.

Remaining Clauses ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time upon Wednesday.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC HEALTH (WATER AND SEWERAGE) (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for Wednesday next.—[Captain A. Hope.]

Orders of the Day — TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Wednesday next.—[Captain A. Hope.]

Orders of the Day — WITNESSES.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [12th July],
That this House doth agree with paragraphs 1 to 14 of the Report of the Select Committee on Witnesses."—[Sir J. Simon.]

Orders of the Day — WITHDRAWAL OF DOCUMENTS.

Ordered,
That no document received by the clerk of any select committee shall be withdrawn or altered without the knowledge and approval of the committee.

Ordered,
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House."—[Captain A. Hope.]

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.

Resolved,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending section one of that Act to the borough of Wimbledon, which was presented on the 9th day of May, 1935, be approved."—[Captain A. Hope.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain A. Hope.]

Adjourned accordingly at Nine Minutes after Nine o'Clock.